Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Jack Dempsey

Hi, I'm in need of second opinion. Can someone tell me, the way flag icons are represented on Jack Dempsey's fight record box next to his opponents is against wikipedia rules of MOS:FLAGS. And is it against wikipedia rules to use flag icons next to a professional athlete in a sporting sense, meaning in a sports statistics boxes, not infoboxes, example 2011 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season, 2011 World Rally Championship season and other non olympic sports for example like mixed martial arts, Patrick Barry. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the use of the flags in such a table is in line with accepted practice, although the Canadian flag needs to be changed for the correct one. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue currently be debated with Marty Rockatansky is taking place at WT:MMA about including flag icons in records tables like with Quinton Jackson. The side against using flag icons in these tables are arguing that since MMA has no official national sporting groups that the individual fighters are not representing their countries and so including flags runs afoul of the MoS where it states "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise" and "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." This being in line with how football articles work (see Leo Messi as an example, the Argentina flag is only used when he plays for the national team and is never used when he plays for Barcelona). Flag icons mean the MMA athlete has some kind of official position representing his country of birth and that the country, in some capacity, recognizes this. There is no evidence that within MMA the fighters in any official capacity represent their countries or that their countries in any capacity (official or otherwise) acknowledge this representation. I'll let Marty Rockantansky and the others present their view on the subject by linking to here from the MMA discussion page. SQGibbon (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A flag icon indicating a nationality of a professional individual athlete in a sport statistics box is within a sporting sense. It's a necessary bit of information of any individual sport statistics and if its in line with accepted practice by wikipedia standards, thats all I wanted to know.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
As the guideline stands, I'd say that the answer is probably no, most of the flags in the page in question are not appropriate. The relevant part of the guideline, I think, is "Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags). If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent." Now, I don't know a lot about boxing, so I could perhaps be convinced that the amateur boxing organizing body does assign representative nationalities to boxers, and that is what is being shown on the fight table. But that is the key. According to the guideline, for an athlete to represent a nation on a sporting sense, the rules of a sport governing body must be used to make the determination. gnfnrf (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Upon further examination of the article, it is clear that even if there is some reliable method to determine representative nationality, it hasn't been used. On that table, Johnny Sudenberg is listed with the Swedish flag. In his article, however, he is identified as Swedish-American with a Swedish birthplace in text, and with the American flag in the infobox. It appears the flag in Jack Dempsey's record identifies his birthplace, which is specifically against this guideline. This may be true of other entries, but since many of them don't even have articles, it is difficult to check. gnfnrf (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, use of flags in such tables is not an accepted Wikipedia practice. It's just that several editors add them without knowing or caring for the guidelines or consensus, similarly to how several editors create articles for fictional characters that do not meet the notability guidelines because they like the notable series in which they appear. Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing doesn't really have a consensus in this regard. In fact, it is a contentious point. These are the related conversations:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycle racing has not discussed the issue, the MoS has just been ignored. But in other related WikiProject there is also no consensus and these discussions regularly pop up. From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One and Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport, these are only the more recent ones:

But as stated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport, it's best to look at the thread right above this one, RFC on the use of flagicons in lists, where the issue is currently in discussion and will probably be of more value than these previous discussions that I pointed out. Jfgslo (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have some related topics in WP:Boxing and we don't really have a consensus yet. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
And since there is no consensus for the MMA project either then people shouldn't be removing the flags until there actually is one. Falcons8455 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually there is a consensus in the MMA project, which was reached at the end of March. But as soon as it started get enforced, some editors expressed their interests in keeping flag icons for nationality, adding extra details to the original discussion and making it look as if all editors participated on it. With a few exceptions like you or Niluop, most editors have not provided a rationale not based in aesthetics and merely would like to make the change based on popular vote (see WP:VOTE) but forget that Wikipedia is not a democracy (see WP:DEMOCRACY.) A consensus to override the previous one has not been generated. Even if you believe that the majority of people dissenting from the consensus is proof that there is no consensus currently, the default action for no consensus would be to keep MOS:ICON as the base rule until another consensus decides otherwise. In any case, the outcome of RFC on the use of flagicons in lists and the changes to the MoS generated by it will probably mean that the style rules related to flag icons in lists, like record boxes, would have to change. Jfgslo (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, like 3 people agreed without everyone else in the project knowing about it and then they made the consensus on their own. Then everyone got mad and started this debate. The consensus should have been fully discussed before making it part of the consensus that flags cant be used in record boxes. Falcons8455 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The default behavior should always be to follow Wikipedia guidelines like MOS:ICON and MOS:FLAG, so the people who wanted to use flags in the first place should have changed that consensus first in MMA project and then in the wider community (read WP:CONLIMITED which states that project consensus cannot override Wikipedia guidelines and policies meaning that Wikipedia-wide consensus would need to be altered as well). Also, I personally contacted every editor who I saw involved in the flag situation to the discussion like here, here, and as user LOL did here, along with several IPs, and invited them to the discussion. Had I known there were other editors who were interested in this issue I would have contacted them but since they weren't active at that time in adding flags back in after being removed I had no way to know they existed. Since then I've invited just about every editor I've run across who hadn't already found their way to the discussion. There was no conspiracy among "three people" to force a consensus through, it's just that the people who were already active or bothered to participate reached a consensus to follow Wikipedia guidelines. SQGibbon (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I just looked back and it looks like you guys changed the consensus within just a week of arguments and in those arguments there still was no clear answer as to what everyone agreed on. I didnt even get to enter into the discussion until 3 days after you guys changed the consensus. All of the sudden Jfgslo says "I rewrote the project page to reflect the consensus regarding flags for nationality and city names in the location column. Please check it out and let me know if I omitted something or if there is something that needs to be changed." Then you say "I don't see any problems. Nice job." Way too quick for you guys to change the consensus in just a week when only some users got to participate in it and still there was no agreement with everyone, yet Jfgslo changed the consensus anyway and you said it was fine because you agreed with him. Falcons8455 (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it was more than a week (more days than an AfD.) Like in an AfD, positions that weren't backed up with arguments did not have the same weight like those that did. All arguments in favor of keeping flag icons were based on aesthetics, nothing based on the guidelines or in anything different than aesthetics. There was a majority of arguments and editors in favor of removing flags for nationality in the record table and no one gave a compelling reason to keep the discussion going. In fact, you were the first one that brought a reasonable argument a few days after the consensus was reached. In any case, as SQGibbon mentioned, the default behavior is to follow the guidelines and in MMA, contrary to other combat sports, there is no sports governing body or international competitions to determine representative nationality in a sporting sense. Jfgslo (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
If it's true that "It's just that several editors add them without knowing or caring for the guidelines or consensus" (which nobody seems to be arguing), then how is anyone here claiming some form of consensus that adding flags is somehow wrong? Why is the guideline attempting to tell users that their editing practices are somehow bad? Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't exist to "straighten people out", or anything like that.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
One reason is that they can mislead the reader. That's the reason at the root of the prohibition on using flag icons to indicate place of residence, birth or death. The Guideline on that is based on reasons that may well be applicable in other contexts:
Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death
"Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. Many people born abroad due to traveling parents never become citizens of the countries in which they were born and do not claim such a nationality. For example, actor Bruce Willis was born on a U.S. military base in Germany, so putting a German flag in his infobox, for any reason, might lead the casual reader to assume he is or was a German citizen. Similarly, many people die on foreign soil due to war, vacation accidents, etc., and many people emigrate, without any effect on their actual citizenship or nationality."
People associate flags with nationality and with citizenship. There's no getting around that fact and attempts to do so quickly degenerate into sophistry and wikilawyering. Extreme care should be used in deploying flag icons. They should never be used as decoration. Given their potential for misleading readers, I think the presumption should be against using them, with the onus on the proponent of their insertion to establish consensus about the exceptional reasons in a particular case that overmatch the presumption. David in DC (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Attempting to impose a rule against using flags simply because they may cause controversy is just silly, to me. Text could be just as misleading as a flag icon, and for exactly the same reasons, after all. Regardless, as I said above, it obviously doesn't matter what the guideline currently says since people obviously don't follow it (and their certainly not checking in with the guideline before editing). So... I mean, you guys can scream and shout about people adding flags and run around trying to police others if you'd like, I'm certainly not going to stand in your way if that's really what you want to do. I just think that it would be more constructive, and more collegial, to deal with the fact that some people like seeing the flag icons, and will add them to articles. It seems to me like it would be a better use of time to patrol pages within the subject area to ensure that nationalities and their accompanying flag icons (if used) are sourced, rather then trying to prevent anyone else who happens to come along from adding one. That's a fight that can never be won (unless you guys are somehow able to start getting pages fully protected, or something).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(Cross-posted from the discussion at the MMA WikiProject) I will admit that the use of flags in record boxes is a very gray area. While MOS:FLAG is a guideline and not a policy, WP:VERIFY is a policy. If the project is going to use flags in record boxes to represent a fighter's nationality in a sporting sense, then those flags should be sourced. Especially for the potentially controversial fighters: Efrain Escudero, Phillipe "The Filipino Assassin" Nover, Nam Phan, Tito Ortiz, Krzysztof "The Polish Experiment" Soszynski just to name a few. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm coming to think that flag icon use in sports record boxes or any other more specific guideline for a certain sport in question, should come down to decisions made within individual sports projects. Obviously no one is gonna ban the icon use throughout Wikipedia in a sporting sense.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I do not oppose the use of flag icons because they may be controversial. When things may be controversial, we do not back away with them. We try to reach consensus about how to deal with them, with WP:NPOV as our guidestar. I oppose most flag icons because they are, often, misleading. It's absolutely correct that words too can be misleading. Misleading text should be ruthlessly edited out, and replaced with accurate NPOV text, where possible. But flags are particular kind of misleading, and a Manual of Style should anticipate obvious, recurring "style and usage" issues, and give guidance so that the whole encyclopedia is consistent, wherever possible. In my view, military articles and articles about competitions (especially where competitors genuinely represent a nation) seem the most likely place for arguments to overmatch the presumption I've proposed above. I was nearly convinced about aviation articles, knowing so little about aviation law and custom. But then I read this:

Down this path lies madness. If a Scandinavian Airlines plane has an accident while flying over Malaysia on its way between Bangkok and Singapore, does it get Sweden Norway Denmark Thailand Malaysia Singapore? What if the pilot is a Somalia Finland dual national, the plane was built by Airbus SAS of France, and it's hijacked by a Japanese Red Army terrorist demanding a diversion to the Maldives unless State of Palestineian prisoners are released from Israeli jails?

Rarely have I read such a funny, and at the same time almost-perfectly illuminating hypothetical example. Kudos to Jpatokal. I'm still laughing, days later. David in DC (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Any sort of guidance like this can be taken to an absurd level. If that hypothetical actually happens, then the hypothetical article about it can deal with it individually. I don't see any reason that extreme situations such as that need to limit everyone else. That is exactly why our policies and guidelines are not hard and fast rules, so that if situations on the extremes come up we can deal with them individually. (it is a humorous example though. It certainly put a smile on my face.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not all that farfetched. In the links above to prompt discussion, one of the first ones I looked at was the Ford World Rally Team. This is a sports team managed by the European division of an American multinational company, based in the UK, named after a Middle Eastern city, and employing Finnish drivers. But in the table, it gets a United States, and the drivers, despite not representing their own country in any sporting fashion at all, get a Finland. gnfnrf (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. :) I see what you're saying, but I think that the above example is simply over-thinking the problem. What do outside sources refer to the team as? If the fan base, the team and/or league, and the media identifies the player or team as American (or British, or French, etc...), then the "based in the UK, named after a Middle Eastern city, and employing Finnish drivers" portion is simply irrelevant. It's certainly true, but those points aren't important to the immediate question. Which, incidentally, is also true if there is no national association. So, as long as people are checking sources, and providing those sources for controversial or potentially controversial points of fact, then I don't see what the problem is. The rule here should simply be "Use flag icons only where the entity that the flag is associated with are well founded, and provide sources as required." I simply don't see any reason to treat this area any differently then anything else.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Very often, sources don't actually name a nationality, but wikipedians feel they have to provide a flag anyway, in which case it's a best guess based on clues such as current residence. Also, source may sometimes say that a subject is (for example) Polish-American, in which case there's a 49% probability that the subject will be given a polish flag and a 49% probability of stars and stripes instead. (In the remaining cases an editor will either apply the UN flag because they think it's a synonym for "international" [1], or they'll create a composite image of the two flags [2]). One variation of this theme, enjoyed by Dempsey & Sudenberg above, is to use different flags in different articles. Of course, flags can change over time too (if World War 2 is too obvious an example, look for mentions of South African people or places in lists; it won't take long to find a few with the wrong flag for their time). Even if a wikipedian actually gets it right - let's use the example of the rally team - then it still steamrollers over nuances that would be much clearer in prose.
But even in the straightforward cases, flag use can be deeply problematic, because it unduly emphasises nationalism even when there's no need for it. A lot of subjects have nothing to do with a national government and yet some wikipedians feel compelled to put a cute little national label on every item, even if their personal (or wikiproject) perspective of nationality differs from what is best for readers of the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Dealing with Wikipedia:Original research is straightforward though: you simply remove the content. As for " steamrollers over nuances that would be much clearer in prose", who cares? Flags aren't replacing prose. Or, at least, they shouldn't be. I just don't understand this viewpoint that a flag can be deeply problematic, I guess. Those who are interested can dig deeper into a subject's national heritage, if they feel the need. I don't see how a flag that may cover up the nuances is a big problem.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Flags

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_11. {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} were nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks IP Gnevin (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And speedily kept. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate use of flag icons?

At 2001 Daytona 500#Results, all the competing drivers in this race have flag icons next to their names indicating the U.S. state they are from. This seems to be an inappropriate use of flag icons, given that drivers in this sport don't compete on behalf of their states, but rather on behalf of themselves and their racing teams. Furthermore, even to Americans, many of the state flags are likely to be unfamiliar and barely recognizable. Note that substituting the state name for the flag would not be a particularly good substitute, either, because it is irrelevant for purposes of this race which drivers are from Kentucky and which ones are from North Carolina, etc.; the competition is not organized that way. For compariso, see 2011 Daytona 500#Race results for results from the same race as held in 2011, where the drivers' states are not mentioned nor are any flags used to indicate them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a thoroughly inappropriate use of flag icons. See WP:FLAGBIO. Flags are never to be used to indicate places of birth, residence or death. Also, flags aren't supposed to be used for sub-units of nations. Also, as you point out, without the state name, these flags don't even convey the information they mean to convey, for nearly all readers. The 2011 article you cite for comparison is definitely the better model. David in DC (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Geographic infoboxes

Geographic infoboxes routinely use flags; the editors at the templates have debated this usage and consensus is that flag usage is OK. I have edited the MOS:FLAG to recognize this; as apparently other editors but without discussion those edits are reversed. Do the reverters have any reason other than opposing all changes or is MOS:FLAG just irrelevant and virtually every editor of geographic material using infoboxes just ignoring all rules? Further reversions without a rationale posted here will be taken to mean that there is no rationale. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. The fact is flags are used in several hundred thousand articles. It comes down to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. If people don;t like flags why isn't there an option in the preferences to disable them? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest for you it's a case of "I like it" - you've even said they look bad without them. Like any other flag in infoboxes, they provide no additional value. The fact that they've been put into many boxes doesn't make them any better. (on the other hand, they are not in many other boxes). --Merbabu (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. On my part it also comes down to ILIKEIT. I could live without them, but only if we have a single standard. So Merbabu you'll have no problems with deleting flag icons from wikipedia at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 11.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
No I wouldn't contribute to your tfd (or your announcement on Jimbo's page). It's already been pointed out (rather generously i thought) that it is "silly" and "pointy" so no need for me to repeat. --Merbabu (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You are deluded in thinking MOS:FLAG is a guideline which I've seen you used to empty Indonesian infoboxes of flags. If anything by you removing flags it looks like you have some sort of politicial agenda.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Am I not biting the way I should? --Merbabu (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A solution would be to accept flags in infoboxes on settlements and a preference option to hide all flags so those who detest the site of them can hide them and that way everybody is happy. I think flags are fine for most countries except those which are areas of political dispute where a flag may be seen as a bias supporting one over the other. e.g Kosovo, Abkhazia. The thing is to me an infobox on a settlement without a flag it seems bare to me, like something is missing. But by no means is it absolutely neccesary to have flags, in the same way it is not to have them in hundreds of thousands of sports and war articles. If anything a single flag is much better than to see tens of flags cluttering an article. But I am content to delete all flag icons if there is going to be a double standard over their useage. Merbabu you claim "Like any other flag in infoboxes, they provide no additional value. " yet flag icons are used in over a half a million articles in infoboxes and cluttered sections on sports.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I continue to hold the position that flags put undue weight on the aspect of national government. I can understand that the Houses of Parliament are a government building, but it Mt. Everest or Mt. Blanc so nationalized? These are natural landmarks that existed long before any nations or governments, and I don't like to see the nationalistic aspect of geography given overemphasis. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight on settlements? Ohh, we shouldn't notice that Chicago is part of Illinois or the United States any more than it has so many people per square kilometer, because you know some people would rather think that Chicago is part of Manitoba, which in turn is part of Germany. The nonsensical-ness of this undue weight is bizarre. When we see what WP:UNDUE really says, those parroting the argument is misquoting the policy to support their position; this straw man is dead. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
So, to clarify, you are saying that writing "Chicago, Illinois, United States" could somehow leads people to think Chicago is in some part of Manitoba and is also some part of Germany, and that my claim is "bizarre", where as including the flag of Illinois (which most Americans, let alone non-Americans couldn't recognize) and the USA automatically rectifies that situation? Also, how is my argument the straw man, unless you are claiming that a national symbol (like a flag) is less or equally representative of the national government than the name of the country itself? I am curious here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Georgia, Galicia, Holland, Mexico, British, and numerous other names are used in multiple places. Per WP:UNDUE where the majority position is that Chicago is in Illinois, calling any and all attention to that is fine. It may not be fine in the arguments about people (OK, to whose flag does Copernicus or Benedict Arnold belong?) or species (the housefly gets the UN flag because its everywhere?) or other non-geographic entities, but extrapolating the logic beyond that by reliance on UNDUE has no logical foundation - yet it is repeated as though gospel truth - that's what's bizarre. If there was a contention that Chicago was in Manitoba, Germany, I go agree with you that putting the flag of Manitoba and Germany would bring undue weight to a minority position; however there is no serious contention so no undue weight. So the undue weight is a straw man argument. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I accept that there are many names that are used for different places, but that is why we say things like "Atlanta, Georgia, USA" and "Tiblisi, Georgia". If you put the flags of the state of Georgia and the nation of Georgia up as a differentiator, I don't think as many people will understand them. The use of a national symbol overemphasizes a connection to the nation or the state (territory, department, province). Name the nation so that people don't get confused and have to go clicking to another page to get additional information. I don't claim anything as gospel truth ... this is how I, as an editor, see the interpretation of policy. I don't recognize this as a straw man argument. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Does the US state of Georgia exist independently of the US? Hardly, although they tried that once and still rue the lesson that Sherman's troops gave them. Does Chicago exist outside of Illinois, no more than Captain Kirk exists outside of Star Trek. There is no UNDUE weight because no one seriously contends that Chicago isn't part of Illinois, that Georgia isn't part of the US, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Are these infoboxes within the scope of any particular project ? Gnevin (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Flags in geographic infoboxes are both attractive IMHO and useful in enabling rapid identification of where the mountain, river, etc, is. The sheer quantity of articles that have them suggests this is a common view amongst editors, so let's leave them and their projects to it and get on with adding to the sum of human knowledge. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
So WP:ILIKEIT and a discredited argument? What sheer quanity? Gnevin (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No. I agree with Bermicourt. Personally I think infobox settlements look weird without the country flag. The plain names looks to me like sonebody is purposefully trying to suppress them. Besides aren't most editing decisions editor smake based on ILIKEIT ?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If the MOS purists don't want to recognize the exception, the style is just deprecated and the MOS on this point is a dead letter. For consistency, all geographic locations will be having flags because that's what the designers and users of the templates do. If the MOS doesn't want to explicitly recognize reality, then its relevance (on this point) is to be questioned - especially because no one has put forward either compelling evidence that a consensus ever formed on this point or any reason other than parroting the style (which argument is no better than "me, too") to not recognize reality. The Sun goes round the Earth, because it says so in some book. Why must that be so? Because the book says so. We know what kind of earth some folks are apparently on, then. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked before and I'll ask again Are these infoboxes within the scope of any particular project ? because wiki projects can decide to ingore this guideline Gnevin (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
@ Carlossuarez46: when you write things like "any reason other than parroting the style" or "We know what kind of earth some folks are apparently on, then", I take this as something of an affront which I translate to "people who don't agree with me are robots and don't have a clue". As far as I can see, no one here has made such comments about you or people with similar viewpoints. Let's keep the discussion off of the editors and on the topic at hand. People are allowed to make comments here. They needn't be the strongest of arguments, but you do not have the right to level your guns at editors with contrary viewpoints.LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Soo we have a speedy keep for flags. not surprising. this has shown more than ever that a series revamp of MOS:FLAG is needed. Its a bloody joke that flags are used in 511,000 articles yet certain people continue to cite it as a formal guideline. If deleting the flag templates is not the answer then somehing seriously needs to change here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No we have speedy keep of a pointy nomination. It's shows nothing. Start proposing some changes if you wish Gnevin (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
To anwswer your earlier question. While there is no 'option' there is an option.
css: .flagicon {display: none}
Agathoclea (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
@Gnevin. In short, no. Attractive articles draw the reader in and both visually and stylistically. Flag icons, sensibly used, play their part in that. Symbols like flags are taken in more quickly than text and enable readers to quickly register e.g. where an article is located or who a person represents. I don't need to rehearse the quantity argument; others have done so emphatically. There clearly needs to be a balance, though, which has not been reached, hence Dr Blofeld's nomination - not pointy at all, but drawing attention to an anomaly between practice and guideline. My view is that we should focus our effort on avoiding excessive or extreme usage where the icons become a serious distraction, but otherwise let editors get on with it. This guideline needs to reflect that. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
One man's attractive is an other man's ugly. The reader who scan argument is a myth. This guideline needs to reflect that. then suggest some changes most people who come here to complain this guideline is broken are firmly in the moan about it but do nothing about it category. I hope your not one of these people Gnevin (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
"The reader who scan [sic] argument is a myth." You've never proven that. At all. The one article you cited to unilaterally, and without discussion, remove the phrasing on "readers who scan" from this guideline was a lousy piece, full of flawed methodology and confirmation bias. And you've just repeated it ad nauseum everytime someone has brought it up since.
I ask you this simple bit of common sense questioning: if icon-type images don't aid in quick comprehension, why do all computer GUIs use them? Why are highway signs rife with them? After all, quick comprehension is critical when traveling at highway speeds. Simply put, if they don't help, why are they everywhere? Seems to me you're the one who needs to offer evidence. oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
What arguments have been advanced by the anti-flag folks? It's "ugly", it's "undue". both discredited. @Gnevin; we have modified by the page but are reverted repeatedly, so that's doing something. Your accusation to the contrary seems to indicate abuse rather than understanding. Rather than edit war, we have brought it here; now given this debate it's clear that there is no consensus on the matter.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The anti-flag folks (if we are pigeonholing people now) have a number of arguments against flag usage. Some apply here , some don't. One which applies is aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. I'm not sure how undue and WP:ICONDECORATION have been discredited or where but it's certainly hasn't been during the course of this discussion. Yes, you edited and your proposal was rejected. The only option left is to rework your proposal. I've asked this twice before. Are the infoboxes within the scope of a certain project? If yes then that project can choose to ignore this guideline Gnevin (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Okay, to show good intent, let me get specific. Actually I support much of the guideline. But let's look at tweaking this section:

Avoid flag icons in infoboxes
Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person) explicitly ban the use of flag icons.

I propose the following:

  • The title is renamed to the neutral Flags in infoboxes
  • The text includes the following points and information:
    • Flags may be used in infoboxes provided:
      • Their use is not excessive
      • Their use is consistent
      • They are not deprecated by the relevant WikiProject following fair discussion
    • Examples of acceptable use
    • Examples where use is deprecated by the WikiProject concerned

The change here is more of emphasis - allow use of flag icons except where inappropriate, rather than ban use unless we (who?) allows it. It thus enables us to deal with the excesses without over-policing the vast majority of articles. It allows WikiProjects to share the task. It's less overall work and targetted at the bad stuff. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy with the title change and provisionally happy on not excessive and consistent, would need to see the wording. We already have examples of acceptable use and deprecated use. Gnevin (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagree That's fundamental change (even a reversal) of the existing text. The proposal does not deal with, rather it exacernbates, the problems with flag use that are discussed at length above. --Merbabu (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Merbabu that's because you insist on removing every tiny little flag you find on wikipedia. I suspect you have a political agenda. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please quit the BS and the PAs ("delusional") Blofeld. If picking on editors rather than issues is all you got (alongside pointy afd's, running to Jimbo, and ILIKEIT), then you haven't got much. --Merbabu (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC).
I still remember you as "the flag removing guy" rather than a fellow WP:Indonesia contributor. You ar eone of the worst culprits for citing MOS:FLAG to remove flags from Indonesian geography articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, then it sounds to me like your memory is a bit picky. Anyway, please let me know if I've violated the MOS in any manner to do with flags. However, I suspect we are getting somewhat off topic - this discussion is not about me, and others are likely to suggest it is carried out elsewhere. --Merbabu (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Dr Blofeld, this is a controversial subject, so targeting editors - and categorising them as opponents if they disagree with you on the details of flag use - will only make things worse. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
When did you say you are taking a hike?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Have we lost some comment text after "Happy with the title change and provisionally happy on not excessive and consistent, would need to see the wording. We already have examples of acceptable use and deprecated use."? --Bermicourt (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Politely disagree with Bermicourt's proposal. I see no need to change the current guideline. It only requires enforcement. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree This would be a highly retrograde step; all we need to do is enforce the existing guideline, not water it down. The flaggers have never been able to properly explain why putting tiny flags into infoboxes add information. Our readers are able to read and having "United Kingdom" or "France" is perfectly understandable without a little flag beside it. Ugly and distracting. --John (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • We have explained it - you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. "Ugly" is subjective. Of course readers can "read", but they pick out flags etc quicker. Psychologists have identified that readers first scan a page in 1/2 second; their eyeline picks up on anything that stands out e.g. bold text and flag icons. The widespread use of flag icons suggests that there is a very strong case for changing the guideline to reflect a balance between the 2 extremes, not least because there is an element of subjectivity and also because it would be better that it allows let WikiProjects lead on their areas of expertise rather than setting a rather harsh "one size fits all" rule here. --Bermicourt (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
      • ILIKEIT and WEDONTLIKEIT cancel each other out - I trust we all get this now. Right? But, "it looks nice" is no reason to add it. The scanning benefit of flags is highly dubious and unproven. Even if the flag scanning notion was proven, why is it only "country" that needs to be further described, yet just about all the rest of an article's info is represented by text only? --Merbabu (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Flags in infoboxes draw the reader's attention to fields that are not usually more important than the others, often even less important. They also encourage nationalist POV pushing. (E.g. see WT:Manual of Style (icons)/Archive 8#WP:FLAGBIO. Or see Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality/Archive 1 through Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality/Archive 5. Flags tend to exacerbate such conflicts.) Hans Adler 07:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree Don't need them they add nothing that is not covered with text. Mo ainm~Talk 07:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, why then were the flag templates speedily kept at TFD then if flags do not have some purpose?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, but would like to see ship infoboxes specifically included in the examples of acceptable use. "Excessive" needs to be clarified, as some ships are registered with a number of countries, or the flag for a country changes a number of times during a ships registry. For example, A German registered ship active from 1914 - 53 would go through these flags German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, Allied-occupied Germany and West Germany, all without ever changing its port of registry. The correct display of all five flags in an infobox would not fall foul of "excesive". Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you tell me "Allied-occupied Germany", I know what that means. However, unless you told me, I wouldn't know what Allied-occupied Germany means? They are quick and visual, but too often very confusing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
From the RFC above, it is looking like consensus is that the country will be stated with the port of registry in ship infoboxes. Thus there should be no confusion as to what the flag represents. Mjroots (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I politely ask, if the name of the county is going to be listed, why are we cluttering up the article with redundant information? LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The flags are not providing redundant information though. In some cases, they lead the reader to learn something that they did not know, or did not expect to learn. You've proved that above with the flag of Allied-occupied Germany, which is also the International Code of Signals flag for the letter "C" - . Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
...and in what way is this factoid relevant to the actual ship that the infobox is supposed to be about? Jpatokal (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Because the ICS flags are used to represent Code Letters allocated to ships. Therefore SS Fraulein Foo, registered in Hamburg in 1946 would have Allied-occupied Germany as her flag, and the Code letters DOCX represented by . You will note there is a slight difference between the two flags. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
When you have two pieces of date (the name of a country, a flag representing same), that are there for identical reasons giving the same information, that is by definition redundant. Stating "it leads the reader to learn something they didn't know" is the same reason that is often given for keeping trivia and other miscellany in articles. I would need to see a stronger reason than that to back keeping these flags around. LonelyBeacon (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
How does one define "clutter"? IMO, a lot of articles are really too cluttered as it is. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What is everyone voting on? We don't even have a proposed text . Just a bunch of suggestions Gnevin (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Disagree - The proliferation of infoboxes is already excessive. They are too long, too wide, and serve as a lazy editor's substitute for finding a compelling graphic and writing a good caption to illustrate a piece. Flags make them even longer and even more cheesy. Useless fluff. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. I like Bericourt's middle ground here - there are always going to be cases where flag icons are appropriate, however much some editors would like to ban them completely. The ensigns of warships is certainly one that springs to mind, since they are so often different to the national flag of the ship in question, and therefore add instant value to the article. But I don't like unnecessary proliferation any more than many of the nay-sayers here, and I think Bermicourt's suggestion would prevent that too. Compromise? Heaven forbid ... Shem (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with everything you say, yet the existing and not the proposed text, fits with your comments. The proposed provides free-range for flags, whereas the existing acknowledges that a limited types of uses exist across the project and have been deemed acceptable. --Merbabu (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current section title reflects the guideline. The rest of the proposal needs more detail before I can comment on it. "Excessive" and "consistent" are in the eye of the beholder.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment. The current text makes statements that are very much "in the eye of the beholder" and WP:POV describing all flag icons as "visually distracting in infoboxes" and leading to "unnecessary disputes when over-used". Others might equally say flag icons are "visually attractive in infoboxes" and that this guidance is leading to unnecessary disputes because it is too anti-flag. We will never be able to pin down precise guidance and terminology in this rather subjective area; however it seems to me that a middle course between the "flag burners" and the "flag wavers" plus empowerment of individual projects to determine usage should take the heat out of this difficult debate and allow us all to concentrate on adding to the sum of human knowledge. Could we all just bend a bit maybe? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd agree that the sentence "Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used." isn't very useful and could be removed. The rest of the guideline is pretty good.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment: If some are saying they look nice, and others say they don't, then given that it's simply a question of aesthetics, the default is not to have them. --Merbabu (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I would have to politely disagree with that. If the question is "aesthetics", then we are back WP:LIKE and WP:DON'TLIKEIT. I find neither of these to be convincing arguments. As for Bemicourt's request to allow individual projects to decide, I would guess there are more articles than not which are covered by 2 or more projects ... I see that leading to even more problems that we have now when one project says "no" and the other says "yes" ... the amount of articles going to some form of arbitration could be rather high.LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with User:Bermicourt's proposal and echo the sound words of WizOfOz, "flags act as a quick visual alternative to the text; they compliment it and are no in any way distracting. They do not give undue weight to the subject being flagged." Note that the Geography Wikiproject has already taken their templates out of MOS:FLAG in part because of excessive WikiElfs who take MOS as Gospel and take "to be avoided" to "to be prevented". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree and comment' I had to flee from this talk page when it became clear that - to borrow a phrase - flag burners were on the march and flag wavers were stomping up the hill in the opposite direction. I have never known, in my entire time on Wikipedia, one issue to cause such a wholly disproportionate response. I do not understand the ferocity of argument on both extremes. There is nothing wrong, inherently, with an encyclopaedia using graphic aids to assist those who wishes to expand their knowledge. That Flags are causing dozens of pages of argument whilst other deserving topics are growing dusty and rusted is one of the truest signs that the 'easier' topics can attract the wrong crowd. Can we please all accept that the MoS for flag icons is, by and large, workable and move on? doktorb wordsdeeds 05:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree: The proposal does not deal with the problem and, instead, opens the door for different interpretations, thus generating more problems. I do not think that a change is needed in the current guideline. On the contrary, in my opinion, it should enforced more. Jfgslo (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. NoeticaTea? 00:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Flags on AFV infoboxes?

I removed a decorative flag from a tank article but another user reverted me, restoring the flag in contravention of MOSFLAG and also of the military project flag style guide. As this user is seemingly unable to explain why they restored the flag (and the overlinking) in their edit, I thought I would bring the matter here. What do folks think? --John (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the flag is purely decorative and adds no additional information not conveyed by the text. Mo ainm~Talk 22:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The Military History Wikiproject has been informed of this issue. Mjroots (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent example of why these flags get overused and become confusing. Does the flag represent the nation it was originally used? Where it was designed? Built? The only nation that uses it? I am sure that the person who places it in these boxes thinks it can only mean one thing, and that it should be obvious, or that it is understood to everyone what it means because of a discussion on some talk page ... but it is rarely obvious. I agree with Mo ainm ... it does not belong. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I explained clearly on my talk page why I reverted the removal of the flag. It has been in this article for years, and every other tank article I've seen. In my view this shows clear consensus among the editors of these articles that it is a standard in the infobox. My reading of the mos and milmos is that flags are neither recommended nor forbidden. This could do with more discussion at WPMILHIST to see if we can clarify the usage and decide whether to include them in tank (and other)infoboxes - and if so, how, or remove them from all tank articles; instead of arguing about this single one. (Hohum @) 12:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That a flag was left in an infobox for a long time until somebody else removed it is hardly a consensus for the flag to stay. I, too, think that the flag was pointless nationalist decoration. I'd agree with you on the need for a broader discussion than just one article; that's why we're here in the "Flags on AFV infoboxes?" section of WT:MOSICON, rather than the article talkpage. I'd love to apply the same principles to decorative flags on many other articles. bobrayner (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The number (scores) of tanks articles, the length of time included (years), the number of editors involved (scores), some of good, A or featured status (reviewed), tends to suggest consensus to me. Warship articles tend to have much larger flag icons in their infoboxes, warplanes tend not to have flags but sometimes link their national origin. (Hohum @) 13:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Warships fly a flag as part of their role, so it is more justified to have the flag they sailed under. Tanks don't generally do this. --John (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not as though the flag is showing up in the middle of the prose. It's in the infobox, where such things are perfectly appropriate. Infoboxes are designed to provide "at a glance" information, making a nation of origin flag icon not only appropriate but desirable.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly it is in the infobox which is against the MOS. Mo ainm~Talk 20:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Untrue. Even if the text of the MoS says that using flag icons is somehow against the rules, that's completely irrelevent. The purpose of the MoS isn't to be a set of rules that must be followed, but to describe what is accepted by the community. Several of you feel that flag icons ought not be allowed (or at least should be severely limited), but the fact is that position is not supported by consensus. I certainly disagree with that position, and I see no compelling reason to sit on my hands about this issue and go along with the weird aversion that some of you seem to have to flags. People are going to keep readding them, and reverting their removal, so get over it already (or don't. Don't let me tell you what to do. If y'all want to continue to tilt at windmills, so be it)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I support the use of such flags in infoboxes - they provide "at a glance" the country of origin; the relevant project supports it and usage like this can hardly be described as excessive. I have tried to get a compromise agreed - see above - but some of the "flag burners" are hard over on this issue. I propose we stop these unhelpful flag wars and get on with improving articles - it's much better use of everyone's time. Leave the project experts to rule on use of infobox flags in their area. --Bermicourt (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(indent) Could someone who supports the use of these flags explain to me how I am supposed to interpret these flags (or for that matter the "country" entry in these boxes? Is this the country who designed the tank? Funded its development? Built it? Built it first? Built it exclusively? Uses/used it? Provided the most parts? The argument that "this provides quick information, IMO, is not true because it only tells me that a particular country is involved, but not in what way. As noted above, a ship or Olympic competitor is different since they are flagged objects or compete under a particular flag. I think that there is some fundamental miscommunication that these flags may automatically mean something to some editors, but they are not universally understood to have the same meaning to everyone ... and as such are confusing, not informing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The words "place of origin" next to the flag are the clue that pretty well answers your questions. And you contradict yourself in saying ""this provides quick information, IMO, is not true" and "it only tells me that..." because you admit it has given you information, it's just not enough for you. But the truth is that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKE flag icons as is clear from all your comments on this page. Deleting the flag hasn't resolved the your questions at all, but did address your real issue - you don't like flags in infoboxes. Well, the rest of us should accept that - it's your view - but you need to reach a sensible compromise with the many that do see them as helpful and attractive - their views count too. Hence my proposal above to find a middle route that most can accept. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
How are they helpful? Are there really people out there who won't understand United Kingdom unless there is a little Union Jack beside it? As for attractive, the MILMOS and this flag guide both deprecate decorative flags. --John (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's very important that in an article on tanks (or any other topic for that matter), that we can see the flags for each country. What happens if we don't know what the flag of a country looks like? That's why it's so helpful to have a flag in article. On the other hand, I don't think any other attribute is that important that it deserves immediate explanation. Personally, I think we should put flags everywhere. They are more important than anything else Also, the MOS is just a guide. If you don't like anything, just ignore it - who needs it? Just my thoughts. --Merbabu (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I know you edit the U2 artcle, Merbabu. Do you recall this discussion? You supported removing the daft wee flag that article used to have. On Wikipedia, we just don't use flags this way. As a grown-up encyclopedia we expect that our readers can read. --John (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been stated that the use of flagicons give the reader "at a glance" information, this is true for a limited number of flags, the Union Flag being one of them but would a reader at a glance know for example any of the newer flags from the old Soviet Block? The text that accompanies these flags does exactly what is required if an editor is just having a glance and an infobox. Mo ainm~Talk 09:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

These are just the same old arguments. The fact is there are 2 camps - the flag lovers and the flag burners - and you are never going to agree with one another. It's a bit like the arguments over US and British English. Wikipedia sensibly allows both and encourages consistency within articles. Here we need consistency between articles of the same type; that's best done by the experts, i.e. individual project members. That at least provides some check on rogue extremists starting edit wars. It seems to me that this guideline currently leans too much towards the flag burners and encourages deletions like the one that started this debate. We just need to ease it up a bit and delegate some responsibility to project teams who are probably less emotive about it than those protecting this guideline. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Bemincourt, with due respect, I must politely say that you are twisting my words. When I say "it only tells me that...", it means that it is giving me information that is confusing. That should never be permitted in an encyclopedia or other reference work. That's like saying that someone sent me a coded message without a key to break it and I say "Hey, you sent me a message, but I didn't understand it", and the sender says "So, we agree you got some information."
I am also a bit offended that you say "the truth is that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKE flag icons", because that is a downright false assertion. I support their use in places where their use can be helpful in conveying information where the use of the name of a country is impractical ... such as the infoboxes for battles where including the name of a country (after a general's name, for instance) would be impractical because it takes up too much room .... such as listing Olympic athletes in brackets or similar boxes where other information must be included, and the country name takes up too much name (and TLA for the nation is simply confusing). My opposition to flag icons is when they are used in areas where they start giving confusing information, exactly as I have detailed in this case. Please do not go putting words in my typing and try to reduce the more complex argument to simply "its us vs. them". Describing people as "flag burners" is nothing but propagandistic name calling attempting to demonize anyone with a counter argument. I'm sure anyone reading this sees through that.
By the way ... when you write: It seems to me that this guideline currently leans too much towards the flag burners and encourages deletions like the one that started this debate. We just need to ease it up... .... This is my opinion an example of WP:JUSTDONTLIKE.
Also, if you're plan is to turn it over to the projects, what happens when articles are under the auspices of two projects, and one won't allow their use, and the other does? You are trying to reduce this to simple terms (us vs. them, let the projects decide for consistency), but this is a far more nuanced problem then you are making it out to be. LonelyBeacon (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Could we get back to the topic instead of talking about each other?
The argument that goes along the lines of "It's confusing whether it indicates place of usage, manufacture, nationality of inventor", etc., is irrelevant to flag usage. If the country name was printed there, it would be just as confusing. Take that argument to the infobox talk page - however, it says "Place of origin", and there is a separate section for "Used by, Designer, and Manufacturer", so I think it's pretty well covered.
A flag with a link to the correct country article in the correct timeframe provides, at a glance, relevant information. If you don't recognise the flag, you can click on the link to go to Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, etc. If you are going through several tank articles you will start to remember the flags even if they were unfamiliar - you learned something! This would seem to be one of the points of an Encyclopedia.
If you really don't think flags should be in AFV/Tank infoboxes, be bold and remove them from *all* the relevant articles. WP:BRD will attract the correct amount of community feedback. If not, it would seem sensible to return the single article to the current standard. (Hohum @) 13:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI. This has previously been brought up by John in 2008 at the template page and discussed. Interestingly the documentation at Template:Infobox weapon for the origin field says "Flag icons should be avoided in this field, per WP:MOSFLAG and WP:MILMOS#FLAGS." - since 2006. (Hohum @) 13:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as I started off saying, there's been a long-standing consensus not to use flags for decoration on Wikipedia as a whole. The onus would definitely be on those wishing to use flags in this way to justify why this improves articles, something I have never seen. --John (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Some editors just said why in this very thread. (Hohum @) 17:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Not that I noticed, no. --John (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
So, why haven't you removed the flags from all of the AFV articles?
Just a bit up this page, from a couple of months ago, an RFC ended up supporting flags in some infoboxes. So, instead of ignoring arguments and reciting the "rules", how about engaging in *collaborative* discussion about the way forward. IMO we are currently heading towards everyone getting bored, and the thread fizzling out. My expectation of what would happen after that is all the AFV article infoboxes will keep their flags/link because nobody will want to stir the pot and remove them, and eventually someone will put the flag back in the article which started this thread, because they will think it is the standard. (Hohum @) 21:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons in company and power station infoboxes

I made a request to use a bot to replace flag icons in company and power stations infoboxes with country names. Before running a bot for these edits, a clear consensus is needed. You are welcome to make your comments at the relevant templates talk pages here and here. Beagel (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless the companies are directly associated with the country in question (c.f. Amtrak, which is owned by the US government), I'd agree that it doesn't make much sense to have the flags in company infoboxes. It's rarely necessary to emphasize nationality of companies outside of cases like the example I provided above, and it can be misleading. For example, Olympus Corporation has their HQ in Japan, but the majority of their business is done in the US, and they have other headquarters there as well as in Germany and the UK. You'd either have to use  Japan, which seems to me to be somewhat misleading, or you'd have to use all four flags, which is way too much. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification. Similar discussion was started here for usage of flag icons within the Dam infobox. Beagel (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

State flagicons in use in racing templates to represent drivers

I would appreciate anyone's help, I recently removed state flagicons being used to represent drivers in templates in racing articles, such as 5-hour Energy 200, with the edit summary of "Removed state flagicons per WP:MOSICON#Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance." Then an ip editor, 72.193.242.62, reverted my edits without an edit summary or sometimes just hitting the undo button with no edit summary, basically calling my edits vandalism. The flagicons should not be used since they are not relevant to the articles and the racers do not race for the state and therefore the flagicons represent their birth place, going against FLAGBIO, or represent where they live, which is entirely trivial and is not needed.

I left a message on their talk page, so they could discuss their edits there, instead of continually reverting mine and instead they just ignored my message and continued to revert without edit summaries. I know this was recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 10#Is this an appropriate use of flag icons?, but that was only two editors in agreement, so further discussion would be helpful. Aspects (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's WP:NASCAR convention to use state flags in NASCAR race winners lists. I have left a note about this discussion at WP:NASCAR. DH85868993 (talk)
When I brought up not using flag icons to represent NASCAR driver's home state per WP:FLAGBIO, then flags stopped getting used. We reached consensus to not use flags at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR/Archive 7#Template:NASCAR race season infobox. But no one wanted to spend the time to do mass removal from so many articles. Royalbroil 03:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think all the flags should be removed. I'm currently working on changing the results table to a different format (most recent change was to Pure Michigan 400) where I remove the winnings. I don't have enough time to do the mass change, but I'm working on it one at a time. -- Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'd agree that articles like this are using flags inappropriately. How many articles are involved? Is it just articles about races, or bio articles on drivers too? (If there's a handy category I could browse through, I'll have a look...) bobrayner (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd say that a good rule of thumb for flag icon usage would be that they are only acceptable as a substitute for text if that text would be present in the article anyway. For example, if the icons were removed, would any editor add the state names, such as "Jeff Burton (Virginia)"? My guess would be no, so for that reason, the icons have no place in that table either. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
There are many articles (normally race articles) which include flagicons. I don't include them on articles such as 2011 Daytona 500 and 2010 Ford 400, and I don't really like having them in the other articles. I feel that WP:NASCAR needs to have more consistency with our articles, but with the large amount of IPs editors it normally gets reverted fairly quickly. -- Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 19:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Basically, to get them removed quickly you need to compile a list and get someone with good AWB-fu to take them out (I can explain exactly how to anyone who wants to try it). That's what I did for longevity lists; it probably won't be quite as bad for this (fewer total flags to contend with), but it takes some time. When IPs revert, give them MoS warnings. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
IPs are people too, though; if there seems to be very widespread opposition to a MOS change then maybe it's worth reconsidering. But yes, let's try removing the state flags first and see how it goes. bobrayner (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they are (and I've seen many IPs make exceptional contributions), but in the longevity topic area a few IPs insist on restoring the flags with deliberately misleading edit summaries (see the history of List of living supercentenarians for what I mean). MoS warnings usually work pretty well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
How exactly can you code AWB to remove the flags? -- Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 00:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
First, you need AWB access, and if you don't have it it's fairly easy to get. When you open it, click the Normal Settings button, and it will show up with Find and Replace columns. To replace  United States with United States, you put {{USA}} in the Find column and United States in the Replace column and check it off; to replace Connecticut with Connecticut, same thing. Preview it to make sure you've gotten everything, and if there's one flag that should stay you can replace it before saving (it comes up with an edit box). It takes a little while to do the first time, but it saves a tremendous amount of time for subsequent articles because it will save your settings; you can make a list and go through it pretty rapidly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There are to many variants for this to be practical Gnevin (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this isn't very difficult, with just a handful of regular expressions. Just let me know what category(-ies) to walk through and I can take care of it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure I removed all the flag icons from the race articles. (Unless they are not in a category.) I probably will now remove the flag icons from List of NASCAR drivers, unless these need to be kept. -- Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 00:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I just fixed another 35 NASCAR articles that still had flags. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for helping Andrwsc. -- Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs)

Crown colonies, dependencies, dependent territories, overseas territories, etc.

This section discusses only about subnational entities, that flags of the UK and Canada should be used instead of flags of England and Quebec. But what about Greenland, Bermuda, Gibraltar, Puerto Rico, and so on and so forth? 116.48.84.190 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the context. Which article(s) are you referring to? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally speaking. Dependent territories frequently get into such troubles, from flags, lists, to categories, and so on and so forth. 147.8.232.154 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Countries On Metal Bands Lists

We have a discussion where one editor feels that musicians are like athletes who identify with their nationality at List of melodic death metal bands. We had a recent rfc here were we determined that the media gives labels to athletes, and in that discussion (split here and here and also other sections/areas here) we determined that if the media labels the athlete as such, we can include the (political) information (of course via WP:RS. On List of melodic death metal bands, flags per se are not being used, but omitting the flag and including the name of the country seems to me to be applicable to this protocol. Your consensus is greatly appreciated at Talk:List of melodic death metal bands#RFC: Should The "Country" Column Be Included In This Article?.Curb Chain (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinions needed of Template:Portal bar

What do we think of Template:Portal bar, the standard Template:Portal widely accepted as being part of the wiki UI, but portal bar is massive. Gnevin (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dagger (typography)

What do we think of the use of this symbol to denote:

  1. Extinct taxa (on biological articles, see this discussion)
  2. Combatants who were killed in action, see  †, and
  3. As a general mark for footnotes (see for example Template:Infobox football biography and the thousands of articles transcluding it)

My own view is that the first two uses are suboptimal and confusing per this guideline and that we should recommend only using this mark in the third sense. What do others think? --John (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's reasonable to avoid using it in the first two ways, but also have concerns about using it for footnotes. Why not use superscripted numbers? The football biography infobox seems to do three footnotes - with *, †, and ‡ ... wouldn't ¹ ² ³ be neater? bobrayner (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, now that you mention it that would work. --John (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It's the standard symbol for extinction. I'm not aware of a widely-used alternative. It's already used in probably thousands of Wikipedia articles, as well as in thousands of other sources. What, exactly, is the problem (and here I'd like to see evidence that a problem exists, if there is any), and what is the alternative? Why is it reasonable to change thousands of articles on a whim? WolfmanSF (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
If you read the guideline that this is the talk page for, you will see that this is not a whim. We deprecate the use of icons and images over text on this project. The use of the same symbol for three different purposes is suboptimal for reasons that should be obvious. --John (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't see a problem unless there is a potential for ambiguity. Putting a dagger next to the name of a taxon really doesn't have such a potential. Further, the meaning of the symbol can be made clear to anyone unfamiliar with the subject by the addition of the appropriate link: †. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the approach taken by {{KIA}} is good; provide a wikilink to the Killed in action article, which serves as a legend for the symbol's usage on a military history article. Similarly, I would propose a new template be used for taxonomy articles instead of the bare typographical symbol, with a link to the Extinction article. For the football infobox and other situations where the dagger refers to the second footnote in a series (after the asterisk for the first footnote), I would prefer superscripted numerals instead. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your second point: I don't see why we shouldn't officially deprecate use 3. As their is no danger of confusion between uses 1 and 2, that will solve the problem. Regarding your first point: As this is a fairly standard symbol, screen readers should be able to deal with it, in which case their would be no accessibility problem. But IMO use of the symbol should be restricted to situations where it can be used several times, and it should always come with an explanation. Hans Adler 18:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The other problem I see with uses 1 and 2 is that this symbol has connotations of Christianity (see here). I know there was discussion of the unsuitability of this for certain subjects in use 2, though I cannot now remember where this was. I think it also looks a bit weird in use 1 for the same reason. As there is no consensus to use the symbol for use 1 I wonder if we should just deprecate it pending such a consensus being formed? This is the normal way consensus works here. Thoughts? --John (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Following Andrwsc's point, we already have {{Extinct}}; we could add a link to Extinction and maybe tweak the appearance if the community so chooses (or maybe not). Changing the template once saves changing thousands of articles; that's what templates are for. (I'm not familiar with convention on biology templates; maybe there's another one out there which is often used instead of {{Extinct}}, or whatever) bobrayner (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I simply do not understand the point "The other problem I see with uses 1 and 2 is that this symbol has connotations of Christianity". Yes, the symbol is used in Christianity. So? The symbol is standard shorthand for biology to denote extinction. Like many symbols it has many potential uses dependent on context. I see no reason why its use in one context somehow precludes its use in an entirely different one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry you do not understand this. Let me try to scaffold it for you. On German Wikipedia they use † to symbolize the death of an individual. Here, we do not. We instead use the word "died". Can you see why (for competent English speakers) the latter is preferred on this project? --John (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Anything can look weird to someone unfamiliar with it. So that is not a valid argument against use of the dagger. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec) John, you appear to be missing the point. Regardless of its other uses, the symbol is universally used in reliable sources to indicate extinction. In context, there is next to no danger of misinterpretation as a religious symbol. Why, therefore, should it not be used in this context? I am afraid I must be a little dim as I cannot fathom the relevance of your German remark to the use of this symbol in biology at all. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
John - And what does that have to do with Christianity? I understand the point about not using shorthand (although I don't agree with it) but that is a separate point to the unintelligible objection that because the symbol has one use in one context that renders it unusable in other contexts for other meanings. That is the point I do not understand. Incidentally, I've posted notices about this discussion on a number of TOL pages. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that the context is the key. The dagger/cross thingy is a widely used unambiguous symbol for extinction, and as far as I know uncontroversial. I see no reason not to use it in bioloyg articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any real objections to the use of daggers to denote extinction, but is it really necessary to mark out extinct species, and with a slightly cryptic symbol? —innotata 21:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And is it necessary everywhere? For example in a taxobox for an extinct taxon? —innotata 21:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I agree; I don't have any problem with the dagger symbol for extinction, but don't see that extinct taxa should be marked everywhere with that dagger. Ucucha (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The only other option would be to place the words (extinct) beside it. Which we can all probably agree, would crowd even more the usually already crowded Binomial field.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I mean, what's the rationale for using a symbol for extinction? And does it need to be everywhere? I can more understand the use in lists, but isn't the first sentence enough in an article on an extinct taxon? Not a big deal, and I don't care whether or not this is used, but I'd like to know really why this is done. —innotata 22:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course, like ErikHaugen mentioned, we never use it in running prose, but we use it in lists and whatnot, and the taxobox is a kind of list I guess. Extinction is a pretty important thing to point out, imo.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think it needs to be explained on first use, especially as it is such an important fact. Using a symbol that will be opaque for non-specialists without explaining it in text seems highly counter-productive to our mission. --John (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The dagger (it is not a cross) is the standard symbol for extinction in academic sources, it's not an arbitrary choice made by Wikipedians (See [3] and [4] for examples). Biological articles often contain lists of hundreds of member taxa, the dagger is the most efficient way of denoting extinction in such lists (not to mention cladograms, etc.) Also realize that 'depreciating' it will affect (hundreds of?) thousands of biological articles as well as all the different WikiProjects related to biology. You are proposing a massive change away from accepted scientific usage.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
As someone who edits almost exclusively articles on extinct taxa, I agree with the comments by WolfmanSF, Casliber, Sabine's Sunbird, etc.. in noting that of the three uses listed at the top, the one that should have priority, per the original sources and official typographical usage in literature, is the designation of extinct taxa. The second has apparently already been replaced if I understand the comments here correctly. The third does not appear to be a standard usage on en.wiki. I also dont understand the point of bringing up an argument based on religion or what is done on the German wiki.--Kevmin § 21:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The dagger is standard usage for marking extinct taxa in the scientific literature and is not intended to express any religious connotations. I'm tired of this subject being brought up every year. Abyssal (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I take the opposite view. The first two uses are fine, unambiguous, standard, concise ways of expressing what they express. However using the dagger as a mark for footnotes here would be odd, we use numbers—we use them so exclusively that I am wondering if you mean something else that I'm not thinking of? In any case, in running prose I would not expect to see this symbol to represent extinction or KIA. Instead, I would expect to see it in tables, taxoboxes, lists, etc, where writing out "died" or "extinct" would be very cumbersome. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is this an issue at all? The dagger is a long-stablished scientific standard for denoting extinct taxa. All the arguments against its usage don't seem to hold water. Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Please can everyone who's commented above and holds a clear opinion please vote below so we can sort this out once and for all? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of the original problem was the glaring error in our article about the dagger representing a Christian cross. It definitely was not Christian, a fact even early Christian scholars were very much aware of. It originated from Ancient Greek Homeric scholars and shares ancestry with our modern symbols on subtraction and division as well as the dieses and the asterisk. I've expanded and corrected the article somewhat. If anyone wants to improve it further, please feel free to do so.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposals x 3

Sod this, let's vote on this once and for all and leave a poll open for a month. (Also can someone provide reliable sourcing of its widespread use in biology? That'd help enormously - I'll go and look later. OED might be a good start....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's one, explicitly mentioning its conventional use in biology: [5]. I've also sourced the entry on our article on Dagger (typography).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hold on, what are we voting for or against? Unrestricted usage in all three senses seems stupid whether or not we have a vote on it. One solution that might work is restricting these uses to infoboxes and ensuring there is always a key as to what they mean. I don't see the point in having a "vote" at this stage. Let's discuss further first. Votes without any rationale seem worse than useless here. --John (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
As Obsidian Soul points out - standard usage is in lists or phylogenetic trees of species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Extinct taxa

The Dagger (typography) is used to denote extinct taxa on biological articles, particularly in lists and phylogenetic trees which list living and extinct taxa.

Support

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. WolfmanSF (talk · contribs) 01:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. With the condition that users are made very aware of what the symbol means. ZooPro 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  4. oknazevad (talk · contribs) 02:00 26 August 2011 (UTC) - They're standard across the field of biology; Wikipedia isn't the place to campaign against them. And the fact that they're included in thousands of articles editted by hundreds (if not thousands) of editors tells me there's already plenty of consensus to use them as such. A half dozen editors at a single talk page ain't changing that.
  5. I anticipate yet another full consensus from the WP:TOL in this cross-academic RFC, just as at {{italictitle}}. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  6. It's the standard scientific notation. Abyssal (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. Cannot see any problem with it. Maias (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  8. Agree with arguments to keep. Pretty straightforward and simple way to connotate extinction without having to spell it out..Pvmoutside (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  9. I support standard usage. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  10. Follows reliable sources. mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  11. Absolute no-brainer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  12. Follow the biology sources common use. --Kevmin § 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  13. Per standard usage.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  14. It is indeed used in this manner on Wikipedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  15. It is difficult to understand why the wiki, from time to time, arrogates itself to re-inventing the wheel! Insofar as the use of this symbol in a biological context is widely accepted and not controversial there really is no argument. As far as usage in extra-biological contexts, well, I could care less, and those interested in the usage in those cases can decide what is better. This seems just another case of political correctness gone wild! I am only surprised that the proposal to disallow is not contemporaneously promoting the substitution of the dagger, with this: http://symboldictionary.net/library/graphics/symbols/atheism2.jpgSteve Pryor (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  16. Faendalimas talk 08:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  17. This is already standard usage here. The similarity between the dagger symbol and a Christian cross is unfortunate (I wish they had killed Jesus with an electric chair!), especially as it probably motivated this particular use, but by now it's independent enough not to have any religious connotations, and it's well established in science. We don't need to regulate this in the MOS, we just need a strong consensus to which we can point next time this comes up. Hans Adler 08:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  18. It's a standard usage. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  19. It's standard usage, plus it's helpful in cladograms. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  20. It's a standard usage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  21. As everyone else has noted, it's the standard usage in the field for lists, tables, etc. Wikipedia reflects the consensus in reliable sources, so why is this an issue? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  22. Per comments listed above. MeegsC | Talk 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  23. Standard usage (and reasonably self-explanatory, in my experience, to a user encountering it for the first time.) Shimgray | talk | 23:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  24. This usage is well known. Dger (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  25. Per reasoning listed above. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose (this and the others), not because I don't want to see the symbol used, but as a matter of principle. No need for the MOS to micro-manage issues like this. If editors in a certain topic area feel the symbol is legitimately used in that domain, it's a matter of local editorial judgment whether and how to use it. The MOS must be prevented from being an ever-growing, all-invasive exercise in instruction creep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    That is pretty much what we all want. We've been using it for years without issue. We want to continue using it in peace. We don't want it's use mandated or anything like that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Does this proposal mean on every mention of a species? Only on the first? In text? Infoboxes? With explanation? Linking? Without? Without further clarification a vote is meaningless. --John (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We already use it per sources. I have never seen the dagger used in-text, so the objection is pretty moot.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Military history

The Dagger (typography) is used to denote people who were killed in action, see  †,

Support

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. Assuming this is what the military historians want (has anyone bothered to notify them of the discussion?). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    Apparently not, but I have done so now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  4. The symbol is politically correct in this context because here the symbolism is really that of the dagger, not that of the cross which it resembles. So there is no problem. But my !vote is just for the fact that it's OK to use the symbol in this way if desired by the relevant project. We shouldn't update the MOS. In case of problems in the future it's enough to point editors to a strong consensus in this discussion/poll. Hans Adler 08:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  5. I for one am getting tired of seeing Wiki trying to insert its own standards over those that have existed in research communities for many years. This symbol is frequently used in military history circles and is understood in the KIA context. Wiki does not trump standard practice (or shouldn't if they want to be accepted by those communities).Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support, I have no problems with this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. Standard notation for "killed in action". --Carnildo (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  8. A fine option to use. Like with these other questions, no need to update any guidelines, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  9. OK with usage since when used in the template {{KIA}} its purpose is made clear(er), though unfortunately the bluelink means its got a second bar at the bottom. Not sure if needs a specific MoS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  10. Standard icon that is used widely. I see no reason to change. Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  11. It's just a dagger. Dger (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Again, a plain vote is meaningless unless we clarify what exactly we are voting for. --John (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious. We are all indicating that we are perfectly happy letting biologists use the symbol in their articles for their meaning, ditto for the historians, etc. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Use them how? Use them why? Without a rationale this seems a bit silly and certainly non-binding. We don't generally vote here for that exact reason. --John (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Use them how and why you yourself have already indicated in your opening post for the discussion. To indicate the extinct status of a taxon in a list or taxobox, based on the exact same usage of the dagger in the biological literature at the articles are based on. If there was no vote to be taken, how would your initial proposal have proceeded after discussion had occurred.--Kevmin § 03:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit-conflict; Are you being obtuse? We use them as shorthand. For the standard symbolic meaning that each field of knowledge uses them for. Because it is useful. The same way we have been doing for years, without any problems. There is already a consensus about how to use them, we're simply checking to see if your idea that we shouldn't use them the way we always have has any traction. It doesn't seem to. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is much better than a vote. It would be helpful if we could clarify whether this symbol is to be used on every mention of a species, or just the first. I certainly wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with this if it was limited to use in tables or taxoboxes, and especially if it was explained on first use. --John (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There is consensus! The fact that we've been doing it for years without anyone caring establishes that. As for points of usage, leave that up to the particular editor working on the article. We don't need any more rule creep. And as for where it is used, it is pretty much used only in boxes, tables, lists and cladograms. In running text we still use English (as in we say "The Dodo is an extinct species of bird from Mauritius," not "The Dodo† is a bird from...". As for your final point yes it usually is ideal to list symbol explanations. I note the article that kicked this all off does explain the use. Above each list it says "Extant or extinct (†)". Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
And please don't use citation required templates in my comments. This isn't the article space. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
To be honest John, the current commentary seems to indicate that currently there is solid consensus for the usages outlined in your initial comment. I will also point out that the first use is very likely never to occur on a page where either of the other two uses exist. While the third usage seems to me to be the one that is the outlier.--Kevmin § 04:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • See also Template talk:KIA#Change to KIA. This was a discussion about a year ago and I think the consensus there was to keep the dagger on the KIA template, but to supply the template with an alt tag to display "KIA" where the dagger would be inappropriate. That is what a consensus looks like. I was hoping to see some similar discussion agreeing on the extinction use as well. I'd still like to see the symbol explained or at least wiki-linked on first use. --John (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with recommending that the extinction dagger be wikilinked on its first use (or in the case of taxoboxes, on its last use, next to the unlinked taxon of the article). WolfmanSF (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There we go, that would be a solution to the ambiguity problem I flagged up. --John (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
John, in the Original article you raised this on (Great American Interchange) this is already basically explained were the daggers first appear in the main body of text. If anything the daggers next to the images are superfluous, but explanations are already there so I'm having trouble seeing were the problem was to begin with.--Kevmin § 00:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The only reason I added daggers to image captions is that some of the taxa therein are not present in the lists at the end of the article. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes

The Dagger (typography) is used as a general mark for footnotes (see for example Template:Infobox football biography and the thousands of articles transcluding it)

Support

  1. It seems fine to use it like Template:Infobox football biography uses it. But for footnotes/sources we almost always we use <ref>/etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. I see no issues with it being used in fields of knowledge where it doesn't have another meaning. I don't think enough football players die in action for it to be a problem for them to use it, for example. If it is I clearly have been watching the wrong matches! Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. ZooPro 01:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. Use {{reflist}} or any of the other popular formats... Daggers are generally used for footnotes only outside of Wikipedia. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    Can you back up this assertion? My impression is that this is currently the most common use of the symbol. --John (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    Is it? To be honest, I normally see ref tags used, but I may be looking at the wrong pages. I tend to hang out in the zoology area. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  4. We use superscripted hyperlinked numbers. I do not support forcing WikiProject Football to stop using it however.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  5. No need to use a dagger (which has other meanings) in general user, because there are lots of other symbols to use. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  6. Wikipedia's house style is to use footnote numbers rather than footnote symbols. --Carnildo (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. Lets reform towards using one system and not having a few articles that do things differently for the sake of doing things differently. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  8. Per Carnildo; this is one situation where our house style is relatively consistent (in part because the <ref> system defaults to numbers) and we may as well encourage keeping to it. There's no real benefit other than typographical flavour from using non-numbered (or lettered, etc) footnote markers. Shimgray | talk | 23:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  9. Numbering is superior due to its regularity; 4 always follows 5, but it's not at all clear what follows ‡. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    Where I come from, 5 follows 4...maybe numbers aren't so clear! Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  10. For 2 to 4 footnotes it works. Numbers work for any number of footnotes. Dger (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Looking at Template:Infobox_football_biography, it seems to specifically mark two abbreviations (appearances and goals). Ido recall seeing this outside wikipedia. Best line it up as a specific usage and hopefully some footballing editors will chime in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about it, John, can you provide examples of the dagger being used as a footnote designation outside of the Football infobox? The infobox will naturally result in instances in thousands(?) of articles, but a change to the template would change all of them. Is the dagger a regularly used icon in wiki-pros for footnotes, or limited more to the infobox?--Kevmin § 05:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I had a quick look and couldn't see any other infoboxes which use it this way. Doesn't mean they don't exist of course... --John (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This way of using the symbol makes sense as using numbers would clash with ordinary footnotes. But it should be used sparingly, and especially in biology, military and biographic articles it's important to prevent confusion. As we need an alternative for such problematic cases, it may be better to find an alternative that works universally and then give up this use altogether. Or maybe not. Hans Adler 08:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We can now use upper and lower alpha, upper and lower Roman and lower Greek as footnote labels. See WP:CITELABEL. We cannot use typographic labels such as the dagger since almost no browser supports it as a list style. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The dagger isn't usually used on cricket topics either, as it is usually used to identify the wicket-keeper on each team. – PeeJay 16:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed the daggers from this revision of List of teams and cyclists in the 2011 Tour de France. It has a strong visual resemblance to Christian cross, meaning that the person is deceased. All things being equal, I think we should discourage its usage, especially in biographies, for this reason alone.
    Aren't the [a] or [note 1] already in more common usage than daggers & co.? And there is already built-in support for that:
    Some text<ref group=notes>Text of the footnote</ref>
    {{reflist|group=notes}}
    produces, separately from the remaining references:
    Some text[notes 1]
  1. ^ Text of the footnote

Projects notified

The ToL group of projects, WP:Extinction, WP: Military and just now WP:Football have been notified of this discussion. Are there any other relevant projects that should be notified?--Kevmin § 05:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Village pump and maybe make an RfC for completeness? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I placed a note on village pump...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this debate, beyond stressing that theory is one thing and practicality is another. That said, it might be worth consulting WP:FLC on precisely what we're looking to achieve here, as any change to the MoS on symbol use would affect editors there more than most. —WFC— 10:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The dagger is also used in quantum physics for Hermitian adjoints, as in CKM matrix#Counting. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 13:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of sub-national flag icons in sister city tables

My understanding of this manual of style is that the use of sub-national flag icons (e.g. for states or cities) is strongly discouraged outside of articles directly related to those geographical entities, not least because they are not widely recognized and detract from clarity. User:Jacsam2 has been steadily working through articles for cities worldwide, converting the standard bulleted list of sister cities to a hard-to-read coloured table format which also uses the sub-national flag icons. (e.g. [6] to the Gifu, Gifu article, [7] to the Naju article) I and other editors have warned him against this, but still he continues. Firstly, is my understanding on the inappropriateness of such sub-national flag icons correct? Secondly, what can be done, since the editor simply reverts changes made to his home-made non-standard table? Advice please. --DAJF (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

These are fairly ugly and unnecessary looking tables. For starters, the national flag is redundant as it's not about the country but the city. Oh, and it is also in conflict with this guide. --Merbabu (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
National and sub-national flags are redundant in such lists which inherently tend to be short (2-5 items). I think there was a consensus some way back about this, though I am not sure I can find it. I am pretty sure there has never been any consensus to include these flags either. I've removed a bunch without any adverse comments. I'll have a word with the editor who is adding flags in contravention of this guideline. --John (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not feel that the tables are hard to read or ugly. They are as easy to read as the bulleted list. As for the sub-national flags, I am simply trying to incorperate more information on the location of the city within the country. I add the sub-national icons for informative purposes and to even make the table easier to read, and not boxed up in a corner. Furthermore, these are minor (24px) icons, that are not added randomly to the articles and they serve an informative purpose, not unlike everything else on Wikipedia. I have never added a flag for a city, either. I think the clarity of an article is improved in this way, as more information is stated. The flags add context to the article, and are very small, so they could not be a distraction. I agree, the flag is about the country not the city, as I have always done. I am simply trying to add more information and substance to the articles. Also, I have seen sub-national flags on pages like Tainan. These icons help because you can know were in the large countries the city is. The other editors on that page think so also. Thank you. Jacsam2 (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I like flags too. However Wikipedia works by consensus and you would have to change a long-standing opinion that such use of flags is distracting and unhelpful. Meantime, adding flags is just generating work for those who have to remove them. --John (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus John that the use of flags is distracting and unhelpful. In fact given the sheer amount of flags you see in athletics related articles it seems quite the opposite. Personally I dislike seeing regional flags on wikipedia but there is no consensus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The tables and subnational flags do NOT make the articles hard to read or ugly. Neither are they inherently hard to read or ugly - quite the opposite. To me, they seem to convey a sense of order and neatness to the article. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 13:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I similarly disagree with the alleged consensus. We're not supposed to use icons in text, and, apparently, not supposed to use flagicons in infoboxes, either. So why do we have flagicons at all? In my view, flags are like analog watches. For a number of years, watch manufacturers churned out a great many digital watches. We also had digital dashboards in cars/automobiles, etc. Then the watch manufacturers realised that people actually prefer analog watches, because they're easier to read than digital ones. So watch manufacturers don't really make digital watches any more. Contrary to the alleged "consensus", I believe that flagicons are more appropriate for infoboxes than just country or regional names, because flagicons, like analog watches, are easier to "read" than mere text. Why do some editors say, without evidence, that flagicons are a "distraction"? Why are they "unhelpful"? If flag icons "distract", then don't the unadorned country names do that, too? So why not just leave out the country names as well, and remove all traces of nationality (or sub-nationality) from infoboxes, because it's "distracting" and "unhelpful"? Isn't it really the case that the very reason flags were introduced in the first place (on the battlefield, etc) was that flags are easier to identify at a glance than the combatant nation's name written out in a word or words? And don't just take my say-so for this assertion - read the Wikipedia article flag, which makes this point at least three times - in the lede section, the "history" section and the "in sports" section. Can someone please point me to a non Wikipedia reference that says that flags are a "distraction" or "unhelpful"? - in my view, in the absence of any such reference there would be no warrant for the alleged "consensus". Bahnfrend (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Wrong end of the stick, folks. We would need a positive consensus that this use of flags is helpful. If you can point to an existing one, feel free to. Likewise, if you wish to arrange an RFC to generate such a consensus, that would be an option open to you. Meantime, we should not use them. --John (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Here is a long discussion from October 2010 which failed to reach consensus. There's also a discussion at VP from March 2011 that gives this usage as a problematic example. If there is a more conclusive discussion somewhere which demonstrates consensus to use flags in this way, show it to me. These flags have no demonstrable benefit to our readers, and they contravene MoS and cause puerile edit wars. Let's bin them. --John (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It was made perfectly clear to me when I put the flag icon templates up for deletion about a year ago and they were swiftly strongly kept. I told myself that if there was a strong keep it would prove once and for all that here is no consensus against using flags on wikipedia, in fact one could argue it showed there is consensus supporting their useage. Otherwise those icon templates would have been deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
They are retained, as I understand it, in military and sports biography infoboxes, and in long lists and tables where they are felt to aid navigation. As far as I know, there is no reason to use them to show twin towns as these are usually short (ten or fewer entries) nor has any consensus ever permitted their use for such. We are not arguing to completely eradicate these tiny flags, merely to restrict their use to areas where there is consensus that such usage is helpful. --John (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
So you imply that they would be acceptable in select (long) sister city sections (as some are 10+)? Also, bear in mind that these flags are tiny, and I still don't understand how they could be distracting since they are small. Also, sister city sections usually have the national flag, which you have removed. Jacsam2 (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I can confirm that the table format with the double flags for each entry (as in [8]) is distracting and hard to read. It took me literally several seconds until I understood how the second and third column relate to each other, and the presence of flags must have been part of the reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

List icons in templates?

I've recently noticed ({{icon|list}}) on some navigational templates. (Mainly on China-related topics, for some reason.) In some cases, this is a single entry set aside from the rest of the material on the template:

and in others, it's used to mark out an entry in running text:

Does the MOS have a position on "link metadata" icons like this? I can see an argument for marking out lists in some way. but on the other hand, it's not a very visually informative icon, and it's something I believe we've avoided in the past... Shimgray | talk | 23:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the documentation for Template:Icon, these inline images are used in meta pages such as Wikipedia:Vital articles and/or in user pages. Therefore, I do not think they should appear in article space. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Concur. Meta (project) content and article content should be kept separate. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both - that's about what I expected. One slightly more involved case is {{The Beatles}} (it's specifically {{The Beatles main}}, since it appears to be something clever with transclusion) - it has book, category, portal & wikiproject icons. Of these, at least one - the portal - is an icon we already use in reader-facing content elsewhere... hmm. It'd be odd to have it on just one, though. Shimgray | talk | 18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to make this slightly more complex. I always assume {{The Beatles main}} type of usage was acceptable per the on the main space but not part of it argument . Wiki has a UI which this MoS allows to be used on the main space Gnevin (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG superseded by Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One?

Recently, I've taken to removing flag icons in infoboxes used to identify nationality, per WP:MOSFLAG. I've done a few of these in regards to racing drivers (example). One of my recent removals [9] was undone [10] with an edit summary indicating that consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One was to use the flags in the infoboxes. So, I took at look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One#Drivers and sure enough the recommendation there is to use {{flagicon}} to represent nationality in addition to the text indicating same. It would seem to me that WP:MOSFLAG is the higher precedence guideline, as it is an accepted standard by the community at large, rather than just a Wikiproject, which has no standing as a policy or guideline. I believe the recommendation to use {{flagicon}} to represent nationality in F1 driver infoboxes should be removed. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

See #State flagicons in use in racing templates to represent drivers above.---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
From WP:MOSFLAG: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." (emphasis mine). It's a hangover from the days when teams were painted up in racing colours and raced for their respective nations, but drivers and constructors in Formula One do technically still represent their countries, as evidenced especially by the playing of national anthems at the end of races. JonCTalk 13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Do any of the drivers receive remuneration from the countries they are from for driving? Do any of the drivers have any sort of contract with the country they are from? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It's far from unknown for developing drivers to receive funding from national sporting bodies, who in turn may be receive federal funding. --Falcadore (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • And how does this apply to Eliseo Salazar, the specific case in point, when this particular driver has raced in multiple series? To the more abstract question; can we provide cites of funding being provided to specific drivers, or is this just a blanket assumption that all drivers have a financial tie to the government of the country they are from? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I was only answering the question you asked. I don't think the flags should be in the infobxes. --Falcadore (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Because you removed the flag from his Formula 1 infobox. If it was a more general one for his life or career in general, it could be taken out of that. JonCTalk 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No, but I don't see why we couldn't have more than one, although I don't really see the need. At Juan Pablo Montoya's article, for example, he's got a NASCAR one with a F1 one underneath. The current infobox on Salazar's article is one that represents him as a Formula One driver and nothing else, and that's why it's got the flag. JonCTalk 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That would be appropriate perhaps (if there is in fact a tie between his F1 racing and the Chilean government) in the section on his F1 career, but to represent his entire biography this way? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
In what way do you feel it represents his entire biography? I personally think it's pretty clear it's only covering his career as an F1 driver... JonCTalk 14:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with the flags being in the infoboxes if there really is a tie between the drivers and the respective federal governments. That would go along with WP:MOSFLAG. But, it may be a very hard case to make. A biography of a person article is more than just their racing career representing X. Eliseo Salazar is an excellent example of this. Even if he did race for Chile on some form of contract/remuneration, his career in F1 lasted 3 years. His career in racing beyond F1 lasted 12 years - four times as long. It seems a stretch, even if we can tie him to the government of Chile, to flag his entire biography as Chilean to represent a tie in his career to Chile when most of his career wasn't representing Chile in any official capacity. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
What on Earth does this have to do with governments? Flags represent more than just the governing bureaucracy, they represent nations in the truest sense. Athletes can represent their country or nation whether they are amateur or professional, so your remuneration argument is specious at best, and misleading at worst. You also do not require the permission of any official body to represent your nation. As long as all participants agree that the representation is occurring then that is what is occurring. Many of our most venerable "official" national sporting organisations actually started as private members' clubs, and some of them still are. In some instances different organisations both claim to represent a country in the same sport and very few governments ever bother to step in and make a legislative decision between them. As far as Formula One is concerned, the organising body lists participants' nationalities beside their name on the entry lists and at prizegiving time flags are flown and anthems are played. The drivers themselves very commonly show their national flag both on their car and on their overalls, and many of them incorporate elements of the flag into their helmet designs. Nationality and the national flags are an intrinsic and inherent aspect of Formula One and your arguments only serve to show that you don't actually understand this simple fact. Pyrope 17:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) MOSFLAG doesn't say anything about a need for a tie between drivers and their respective federal governments, so that is not a requirement for the guideline. Some such arrangements are not made public anyway. What it does say is that subjects need to have represented their country, and there are plenty of sources to say that F1 drivers represent their countries. Individual sources are not required as far as I can see. The F1 infobox does not represent a driver's entire career, that much is patently obvious. What it does represent is the pinnacle of their careers, which is presumably why a separate F1 infobox exists. It isn't the fault of the F1 infobox that another infobox isn't present to show details of the overall career. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Use_of_flags_for_sportspersons flags can be used in results tables as the FIA use them [11]. However local consensus can choose to ignore this guideline Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
A couple of more things to consider, in F1 are there national bodies that oversee participation in F1 events? For instance, countries have national Olympic committees and national basketball and football organizations that oversee national teams or individuals who represent their countries (like with the Davis Cup or Ryder Cup). Also, while the playing of national anthems makes for a good argument I think what's being left out makes an even more compelling one. At the end of each race points are awarded to the individual and to the constructors with no points being awarded to the countries. At the end of the season an individual person and a constructor win championships but countries do not. If F1 was really a contest between nations with the drivers representing their nations then you would think that the nations would win championships like they do with the Olympics, the Davis Cup, the World Cup (football), etc. So no, I don't see how F1 drivers represent their nations in a sporting sense therefore the use of flag icons goes against the MOS. SQGibbon (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting points, but wrong. To answer your direct question first, yes, there are national bodies that issue international competition licences to competitors from their nation, and who govern motorsport within those nations. The FIA (Formula One's sanctioning body) is a federal institution comprising motoring and motorsport organisations from many countries. As far as the rest of your points go, you seem to be confusing the concept of representing a nation with competing for a nation. In the normal run of play a golfer doesn't compete for nation, yet a player's nationality is an inherent part of how they present themselves and how they are identified both within the sport and to the wider public. Witness the list of British Open winners. A similar argument can be made for tennis players and events such as Wimbledon. International level sporting events naturally place an emphasis on a sportsperson's nationality, whether that be passive (in the case of tennis and golf) or active, as it is in top level motorsport. A player's performance is more widely followed within their home nation than elsewhere, and major sporting stars (even those who do not participate in the Olympics, or similar) commonly become symbols of their nation. No more emphasis on a driver's nationality is being placed here in Wikipedia than it is in most other sources. Pyrope 15:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not very knowledgeable about F1 but I don't see how you've addressed my points. Can you point to a national body that oversees that nation's participation in F1 events? Something that performs the functions of the US Olympic Committee, the Football Association, or the RFET (governing body of tennis in Spain that oversees Davis Cup participation)? That countries have their own rules for motor sports is not really the same thing. Do any of these organizations choose who represents their countries in international competition? As for the rest of it, it comes down to interpretation of MOS:FLAG and in particular the line "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." This seems to make it very clear that flag icons are to only be used when an athlete/team is competing for a nation. Otherwise what's the point of having that line? Can you provide an example where it would not be appropriate to use a flag icon with a sports person? If flag icons are restricted to official national representation then it becomes possible to distinguish between when an athlete is representing her country or just herself (like with the Davis Cup or Olympic tennis vs. regular tournaments). The fact that other sports do have competitions that award points/championships to countries in addition to individuals indicates that the distinction does exist. That F1 does not award championships to nations makes it pretty clear that its drivers do not represent their countries in the same was as footballers (when playing for their national teams), tennis players (Olympics and Davis Cup), and Olympic boxers do. SQGibbon (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You ignore the little word or in the sentence you quote. Formula One drivers, and racing drivers in general, most certainly do regard themselves as representing their nation, the organising body regards them as representing their nation, the media regard them as representing their nation, and the fans regard them as representing their nation. For example, there is always a great deal of extra attention payed to a driver competing in their home Grand Prix. International sport can and does exist without national teams being involved (although each driver must seek the sanction of their home motor sport association), and an awful lot of what we now regard as formalised international competitions originated in far more relaxed and informal circumstances. Because of its origins and history Formula One retains many of these older structures, which are different from how many other (but not all) sports operate. The point of having the line in the MoS is to emphasise that they must be representing their nation for the flag to be appropriate. Your interpretation of "representing" is not in line with how international motorsport operates, and seems to be mostly governed by sports that have very formal systems for defining national representation. Ultimately adherence to the MoS is governed by individual circumstances, and in the case of F1 a small deviation from the guidelines is fully justified. Trying to make flagicons perform a function for which they weren't designed and for which there is no existing precedent or practice seems to me to be a bigger and more worrying departure from the intentions of the MoS. Pyrope 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not ignore the "or" in the sentence. I does not matter how F1 drivers or the sport itself thinks about the drivers with regard to representing their nations, what matters is how the reality of the situation matches up with the guidelines in use by Wikipedia. There are a lot of other sports that place emphasis on where its athletes are from but that does not mean that these athletes are competing on behalf of their countries. That is the distinction here. And like I said, unless the various nations are being awarded points towards a championship then I don't see how F1 drivers could be said to be representing their nationalities in a sporting sense. Every sport I've ever seen that has a large international presence, fans tend to support people from their country -- I don't see what's so special about F1. Also, using your interpretation of the guideline, it seems like we would use flag icons for every single sports person who has an article in Wikipedia since they all come from somewhere, fans tend to support people from their own countries, and sporting organizations and the media often (if not all the time) make a point of telling you where the athletes are from. Finally, looking through the F1 website, while they mention where drivers are from in the standings (like most/all other international sports do), I don't see any mention of the importance of the drivers' nationalities anywhere else. Can you link to any kind of official stance F1 takes with regard to its drivers representing their countries in international competition ala the Olypmics? SQGibbon (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You have seen a very limited number of sports in that case. In UCI cycling competitions riders are riding for themselves, and at best for a commercial team, yet the nationality of each rider is thought sufficiently significant for it to be highlighted in official results (see here). Boxers are the ultimate in loner sports, yet their nationalities are shown right there next to their names in official results (see here). Similarly, international sailing competitions are solo events where a competitor doesn't compete on behalf of his national team, yet again the nationalities of the competitors are seen as sufficiently important that it is the second fact quoted in match racing results tables (see here). Again you seem to be confused over the distinction between "competing for a country" and "representing a country". They are two different circumstances that may coincide or may not. Arguably, every sportsperson competing in the international arena is representing their country, so you could easily make the argument that a sportsperson has their nationality in their infobox. Many do (see Mike Tyson, who never boxed for the USA in his entire senior career), and others already have their place of birth in there, but in some cases this can be confusing as a person may be born in one country and yet represent another. In motorsport this crops up quite frequently (see former World Champion Jochen Rindt, for example). You ask "what's so special about F1". My answer is that F1 isn't particularly special, just different to sports such as soccer, rugby and cricket, but also different to boxing, and different to sailing, and cycling, and even (to pick a topical example) Scrabble (here). I'm arguing that each case needs assessing on its merits, with the conventions and precedents available in independent, third-party sources taken into account. Trying to find a boilerplate approach that can be applied across all sports and in all circumstances is a fool's errand, and one of the reasons that the MoS provokes arguments such as this on a regular basis. Notions of what "representing your country" means change between different sports, in different circumstances, and between different cultures. If you wan't to go away and develop an approach to the use of flags in a sport that you know about then go ahead, but don't start trying to impose your prejudices and misconceptions on a sport with which you fully admit you aren't familiar. WP:F1 has spent many long hours debating these topics and reaching a workable and reasonable approach. Flags and the use thereof are an ingrained part of international motorsport across many disciplines,not just F1, and are (as the example given by Carl Lindberg below shows) employed as icons of that driver in many different sources (for example, see here). As the {{flagicon}} syntax actually implies, it is as icons that these are being used in the Infoboxes and elsewhere in Wikipedia's coverage of this sport. They are a very small visual tag that helps locate and inform the reader extremely rapidly, without having to search through text for the same information. They help to highlight the drivers' names in long results tables, and allow a very quick appreciation of patterns and distributions. You rightly point out that people are commonly naturally drawn to people of their own nationality, so faces with a block of text it makes it significantly easier to see where the information that Joe Bloggs from Romford might be interested in, while Miguel Sanchez from Quito will be able to find the information he is interested in elsewhere. As I said before, the drivers use flags, the organiser uses flags, the media use flags, and the fans use flags. They are part of the culture and the iconography of international motorsport, and they are used because motorsport originated as a gentleman's pursuit, with plucky amateurs pitting themselves against the best in the world on behalf of King and Country/the Emperor/the Kaiser/liberté, égalité et fraternité, or whatever. There is no national body conferring a cap on all participants in the National Grand Prix Team, but that doesn't mean that they aren't representing their country in the old Corinthian sense. Pyrope 17:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually your examples of other sports is the exact point I was making -- every sport that I'm aware of that has a significant international presence at least mentions if not emphasizes in some manner what country the athletes were born in (and in American football the college a player graduates is also emphasized which just gave me an ugly vision of debates to come -- including college flag icons in infoboxes and record tables for NFL players). My question is how is what they do any different than what F1 does? You state that F1 is different from how soccer/football, cricket, and rugby handle these things (and I would add tennis and golf since these are typically individual sports with international competition) but then you go on to say that it is different than Scrabble, boxing, and sailing but you don't tell us what the difference is. Again, if F1 gets to use flag icons then why wouldn't that same reasoning apply to all sports? Which then leads to asking what is the current guideline restricting? I agree that the use of flag icons with sports is a contentious issue that keeps coming up but I do think it's easier to deal with than you do. Either we should scrap the entire requirement for sports people and just allow flag icons to be used in all their articles (within the constraints of WP:BLP, obviously) or reserve the flag icons for use when a sports person officially represents their country (which is what I think the current wording means and makes clear). If there is no official body that designates who represents its country in international competition and/or championships are not awarded to the country (as opposed to individuals or league-based teams) then flag icons shouldn't be used. It seems pretty clear and easy to me. I understand that you want to use flag icons for F1 and so you don't like my interpretation/proposed rewriting but hopefully at least it's pretty clear and easy to apply. And I do appreciate the historical view of motor sports that you provide but that is not written into these guidelines. And again it really doesn't matter what the fans, media, sports organizations think of this issue, what matters is what is written in the guidelines for Wikipedia. We often define things differently than other people do ("notability", "associated acts", and "partner" to name just a few that I've had to deal with in the past two weeks) and so it's no surprise that we might have a different criterion for when to use a flag icon for a sports figure. I personally like the distinction in that it lets the reader know when an athlete has officially represented their country or not. As for flags' usefulness in tables, what I don't understand is why stop there? I'm sure there are dozens of more pieces of information that readers might be interested in like age, handedness (especially in boxing), marital status, reach (fighting sports), city of birth, birthday, hair color, weight, height, and so on. How is where someone is born any more relevant or important than those things? SQGibbon (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
There are many and varied differences; differences which stem from a whole host of influences. As I said before, each sport should be looked at individually and each case assessed on its individual merits. You seem to want to impose some sort of asinine and simplistic uniform approach to every sport, whether or not that approach is justified or appropriate. If other sports have other conventions and different representation issues are emphasised then bully for them. The guideline as it is currently written (and I'd point out that the MoS stasi have already tightened this up considerably in the last few years) allows for interpretation and a degree of subtlety of implementation. I know diddly squat about the NFL so I do not presume to try and tell those editors who do know the sport what is important and what should be emphasised in those articles. Unfortunately, despite knowing diddly squat about international motorsport, you do feel the need to impose your preferences on everyone else. If the use of flagicons is justified by their use within a particular sport's culture and tradition then why shouldn't someone be able to make an argument for their use? Your particular interpretation of the MoS guidelines isn't canonical, and while you may think it is clear to others it most certainly is not. In life there are grey areas and hues of interpretation, and trying to paint every case the same shade just ends up with the whole world turning grey. You state that " it really doesn't matter what the fans, media, sports organizations think of this issue, what matters is what is written in the guidelines for Wikipedia". I'd point your browser to WP:IAR?, and read. The MoS is a guide, once upon a time written in such a way as to provide guidance and support for editors. These days it is increasingly being used as a stick for the OCD crowd to try and enforce complete uniformity. You seem to be taking it one stage further still, and are actually trying to use it to define and unilaterally impose a new and unhelpful convention on all other editors. Where do you get off? You may like the notion of having flagicons strictly limited to only those occasions where a sportsperson is representing some official and sanctioned national team, but as I have pointed out different sports have different interpretations of the notion of "representing" a nation. That you have grown up with only one interpretation is a limitation that you are suffering from; don't feel that it is something to boast about. You belittle yourself with your penultimate sentence. Is tired sarcasm the best you can muster? I'm not a boxing expert but I do recall a few boxers being routinely referred to as a "southpaw". Is it something that is always brought up in articles about boxing or is mentioned in every results table? I don't know. If it is important to boxing and is an intrinsic part of the sport's culture then perhaps it could be mentioned in an infobox. Your final sentence belies the fact that you don't actually understand the issues within motorsport (or sport in general) as both myself and Bretonbanquet have made the point that what is being emphasised by use of the flagicons in motorsport infoboxes is that person's sporting nationality, not their country of birth. This is defined in a different way to that of many sports (just one of the differences I mentioned above) and is most certainly represented by flag iconography in pretty much all spheres of the sport. Pyrope 03:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, you appear to be turning this into a personal attack against me (please read WP:CIVIL) so I'll try to keep this brief instead of fanning those flames. 1) Not sure how you get from me stating that "I'm not very knowledgeable about F1" to "despite knowing diddly squat about international motorsport, you ...". I've been following F1 for years but have never made a study of it. 2) I was in no way being sarcastic. I literally do not see the difference between including one bit of trivia vs. another (a flag icon for where someone is born vs. their hair color). 3) While the F1 project can make all sorts of style decisions about F1 articles it does not trump community consensus/quidelines. Please read WP:CONLIMITED which states, in part, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." 4) At the very least can you point to something on the F1 website where they state that they consider drivers to represent their nations? National anthems, the media, fans' nationalistic tendencies all make for good arguments but not something that's ever going to be universally compelling. Without some kind of source like that I would imagine that it would appear to most outsiders that this comes down to a special kind of knowledge that expert fans have which comes across as original research. SQGibbon (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Earlier in the discussion you stated that "I'm not very knowledgeable about F1", and your arguments since then appear to back that up. Now you claim to have been following it for years. "Diddly squat" may have been over emphatic to make a point, but the base observation stands. 2) Yes, introducing intentionally trivial and ironic examples is sarcasm. If you want to keep the tone of this debate high then I suggest you start doing so. 3) My arguments have been that your particular interpretation of the guideline is wrong, not that the guideline doesn't apply. In fact, you have already explicitly stated that you are attempting to alter this from a guide to an explicit rule, and a rule that conforms to your particular interpretation only. 4) ...such as that. You have an agenda that you are trying to push. My point is that there are quite a few different interpretations of the concept of "representing" a country, both in society and specifically within sport. You have only one interpretation and you believe that the whole of Wikipedia should conform to your view. My view is that the guideline is well written as it is, and that it allows for individual circumstance to be catered for where differences exist. International racing drivers do not belong to a national team, but the culture and history of the sport place a very strong emphasis on their nationality. The nationality of a driver is enshrined within the International Sporting Code, which governs all international motorsport. A driver's nationality limits which races they can enter and explicitly lays out the responsibilities and jurisdictional limits of the driver's home motorsport association. A version of this document has existed for the whole life of the World Championship and although clauses have changed and been refined down the years, the nationality issue has always been addressed. Pyrope 15:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to where F1 states that the drivers represent their nations? If not then do you not see how this would appear to be original research on your part based on the fact that you are an expert on the subject? SQGibbon (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
If typical media coverage of the sports uses the flags/nationalities, we should probably be doing it here too. I can see avoiding starting the practice if typical media coverage doesn't do it, but I don't see why there needs to be an "official" representation before we allow them. If typical coverage includes the flags, which should mean there are reliable sources to "decide" on the particular flags to use, we should allow it too (similar to golf/tennis). I'm not familiar with F1 at all, but looking at a driver page from formula1.com itself, the flags are pretty prominent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Most news sources will use a place of birth to determine a flag to use and we don't use flags here for someones birthplace and this sport is not an international sport were countries compete against each other so the only reason they are being used to to show birthplace of the driver. Mo ainm~Talk 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not representing the place of birth, it's showing their competitive nationality. Birthplace is a separate field. These are international sports with competitors from many countries; you are incorrect. If reliable sources use the flags, we should too. This exception used to be more-or-less explicit in this guideline, but it's been clouded up in the last year or so, and it would appear the new wording is being used to try and change long, long standing practice in other areas. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Mo ainm, this isn't a vote, you need a reason for your view - that is, a valid reason. It's patently obvious that flags aren't being used in F1 infoboxes to indicate birthplace. If anyone wants to use a guideline to remove flags in a particular case, such as this one, then they need to make sure that their rationale explicitly accords with the wording in the guideline. Editors can't extrapolate and synthesise a guideline to suit their personal preference. I agree absolutely with Pyrope and Carl Lindberg. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not voting and it is not obvious, when will France be racing against Germany? Mo ainm~Talk 11:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
When Jean-Éric Vergne finally gets given a race seat... JonCTalk 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
And it won't be even slightly relevant to this discussion until it says in the guideline that countries have to compete against each other in order for drivers to represent their countries. It is obvious that flags aren't being used in F1 infoboxes to indicate birthplace. In each infobox, there is a link to the superlicence article to explain that the nationality in question is that of a driver's licence, i.e. the country they represent in F1, and many drivers' birthplaces do not match the nationality of their superlicence (e.g. Ian Ashley). How obvious do you want it to be? Do try and do a bit of research. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep the smart arse comments to yourself please, have you a reliable source to show that for example, Sebastian Vettel was chosen to represent Germany in this years F1. Mo ainm~Talk 08:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Is Das Deutschlandlied reliable enough? JonCTalk 08:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Reliable as a link to the National Anthem nothing else, I was at a white collar boxing event the weekend they played the Irish National Anthem at it does it make all those boxers representatives of Ireland? Mo ainm~Talk 08:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you know anything about motorsport? JonCTalk 08:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you know anything about Wikipedia? Mo ainm~Talk 08:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that everybody sit back for a few hours. This is a content dispute that is in danger of becoming a behavior problem. This also requires wider participation to settle the question. -- Donald Albury 11:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Flag icons definitely should not be in infoboxes unless under very specific and defined rules. Doesn't look as if the Formula One article fit that description. They add nothing that is already said, and are used by some people to add color. This has been an ongoing debate for years, and frankly I'm getting sick and tired of certain projects attempting to thwart the guidelines just because they think they can. The guideline is clear, but is unfortunately ignored on many occasions.--JOJ Hutton 11:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The MoS states that "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". Please point me to the part of that statement that requires them to represent the national team. The "or" is there for a reason. Pyrope 15:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all, it's fair to say that I'm fairly knowledgeable of this MOS as I was part of the last discussion last year, who rewrote it. So really, I don't need a lecture on what the MOS says. Secondly, don't confuse what may be ok for the body of the article with what is not ok inside the infobox. This is clearly an infobox problem. Formula One competitions do not fall under the criteria that we came up with last year as exceptions to MOS:FLAG. Only international competitions in which a person is competing for their country. Olympics, World Cups, and other international championships apply.--JOJ Hutton 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A question that was asked and not answered: "in F1 are there national bodies that oversee participation in F1 events?" Yes, and it's in motorsport events in general, actually. Examples include the MSA in the UK, the FFSA in France, the DMSB in Germany, the CSAI in Italy, the RFEDA in Spain, the JAF in Japan, the CAMS in Australia and the ACCUS in the USA. They are their countries respective motorsport authorities, and only they are recognized by their respective countries and by the FIA to issue racing licenses, which have to include the same nationality as in the passport. When drivers get to F1, the FIA issues a Superlicense, but they have to be licensed by their country first. But that's not really important. What's important is that WP:MOS is deciding the manual of style supersedes the original sources. Nationalities are mandatory in entry lists for international events, flags are used to identify nationalities in the cars, and are also the usual method of displaying nationalities in TV broadcasts. --Pc13 (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationalities can and have been listed. Thats fine. Just not with the flag icon, because the flag icon adds no information that simply stating the country name alone does.--JOJ Hutton 17:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

First I apologize to everyone for turning this into a debate about the use of flag icons throughout the F1 project instead of limiting it to their use in infoboxes. The two are somewhat separate issues in that their use in infoboxes is also governed by part of the MOS that does not apply elsewhere. The appropriate guideline clearly limits the use of flag icons to military use and to represent actual nations (like Spain, Brazil, etc. as in the FIFA World Cup or the Olympics) and not to people who represent those nations in international competition. Plus, as the guideline states, the use of flags is "unnecessarily distracting and give(s) undue prominence to one field among many." The name of the country has to be there anyway and it provides sufficient information about the driver without having a flag icon there. SQGibbon (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That would (blindingly obviously) apply to all uses of flags. Those unfortunate few people weak-minded enough to be distracted by a flagicon in an infobox will be so distracted wherever it is used, therefore you should be arguing that they should be removed altogether from all infoboxes. Why don't I see anyone doing that? The idea that they are distracting in some infoboxes and not others is utterly ludicrous. Likewise, if flags add no further information then they should all be deleted. Coming up with some exceptions like the World Cup and the Olympics renders these arguments thoroughly redundant and slightly farcical, and nobody's fooled. I just wish some people would argue against them for the real reason they want them deleted, i.e. that they just don't like them. Furthermore, merely saying that the guideline is clear doesn't make it so. The guideline is a poorly-written bag full of holes. What about A1GP drivers? What interesting ideas are people going to come up with to remove flags from their infoboxes? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
To answer some of what you are addressing here, Some of what came out of the last discussion was compromise. Articles on International competitions (Not international competitors), are acceptable because the persons/teams are representing their government in an international sporting event. Military articles (more importantly, articles on specific battles), were deemed acceptable as well. The flag icon exceptions should not have been exteneded to individual athlete/competitor articles. That would be inappropriate use of WP:FLAG.--JOJ Hutton 23:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
According to some people's interpretation of the guideline, the infobox flagicon usage at Kelly Sotherton is acceptable, and the infobox flagicon usage at Jenson Button is not. Arguments have been put forward, and are also used in the guideline, that infobox flagicons are visually distracting and do not add any extra information. Given that Sotherton's flagicon performs an identical function to Button's, I request that somebody clarify here a) why Sotherton's flagicon is not visually distracting, and b) what extra information Sotherton's flagicon adds to her infobox. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, WP:FLAG should not have been extened to individual athletes/competitors, even if they do now, or have in the past, competed in an international competition for their country. As such, both of those examples are not acceptable use of WP:FLAG.--JOJ Hutton 23:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
So are we to understand then that flagicons are not permitted in any infoboxes pertaining to individuals? The guideline does not actually say that, and it would not have been hard to add that to the guideline if this was the desired result; and why haven't all personal infobox flagicons been removed using a bot if the guideline is so clear? With regard to infoboxes about international competitions, such as 1998 FIFA World Cup, why are the infobox flagicons not distracting in this case, and what extra information do they add? I'm trying to discern the logic behind that aspect of the argument. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
First, I don't know anything about how to use a bot to remove flags. I'm not that technical. Second, yes the flags in that FIFA article can be distracting, but in reality, its an international competition, and I believe those flags in that article actually enhance the infobox. As individual BLPs are suppose to be articles about a persons entire life, the flags are less useful as the person usually only competes internationally for a very small portion of their life.--JOJ Hutton 11:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
And that's why the flags are only in their Formula One infoboxes, along with their teams, car numbers, wins, etc. Or do those have to be removed too? JonCTalk 11:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
They shouldn't be in the infoboxes for BLPs. But answer this question, can, in the case of Jenson Button, the same information be given to the reader without the flag? Take a look at the two examples. What information does the infobox on the left give, that is not already said in the one on the right?
Jenson Button
File:GP Belgia 2011 - Jenson Button - Podium ketiga.jpg
Button at the 2011 Belgian Grand Prix
Born (1980-01-19) 19 January 1980 (age 44)
Formula One World Championship career
NationalityUnited Kingdom British
Entries207 (205 starts)
Championships1 (2009)
Wins12
Podiums40
Career points763
Pole positions7
Fastest laps6
First entry2000 Australian Grand Prix
First win2006 Hungarian Grand Prix
Last win2011 Japanese Grand Prix
Last entry2024 Las Vegas Grand Prix
2010 position5th (214 pts)
Jenson Button
File:GP Belgia 2011 - Jenson Button - Podium ketiga.jpg
Button at the 2011 Belgian Grand Prix
Born (1980-01-19) 19 January 1980 (age 44)
Formula One World Championship career
NationalityBritish
Entries207 (205 starts)
Championships1 (2009)
Wins12
Podiums40
Career points763
Pole positions7
Fastest laps6
First entry2000 Australian Grand Prix
First win2006 Hungarian Grand Prix
Last win2011 Japanese Grand Prix
Last entry2024 Las Vegas Grand Prix
2010 position5th (214 pts)
There is no new information given in the one on the left, that is not already said or linked in the one on the right.--JOJ Hutton 14:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So why doesn't that argument apply to other infoboxes? Like this one:

1998 FIFA World Cup
Coupe du Monde - France 98
Tournament details
Host countryFrance
Dates10 June – 12 July
Teams32 (from 5 confederations)
Venue(s)10 (in 10 host cities)
Final positions
Champions France (1st title)
Runners-up Brazil
Third place Croatia
Fourth place Netherlands
Tournament statistics
Matches played64
Goals scored171 (2.67 per match)
Attendance2,785,100 (43,517 per match)
Top scorer(s)Croatia Davor Šuker (6 goals)
Best player(s)Brazil Ronaldo
← 1994
2002 →

Here we have seven flags, two of them repeated, which add no information that is not already there or that should be added anyway. Šuker's and Ronaldo's flags should be accompanied by the country name. So what information would be lost by removing these flags, and why are they protected by the guideline? What exactly is the claimed enhancement that these flags bring to the infobox? Why does the word "France" have a flag beside it for emphasis? Twice? Does it not give undue prominence to those fields among many? Again, why are these seven flags not distracting in the same way that Button's single flag is apparently distracting? Why are the arguments used against Button's flag not used against these flags? This is a fundamental flaw in the guideline - it is a double standard.

On a wider point, we are debating the removal of one flag from Button's article - the only flag in the whole thing. In the 1998 World Cup article, there are 399 flags, most of which are repeated again and again and again, adding no information that isn't already present or that could be provided by a country name, and the article is thus rendered a gaudy flagfest. But this isn't "adding colour"? How this is allowed is beyond me, yet one single lousy flag in an F1 article attracts so much vehement effort to have it removed. Why is that? Why is flagicon policy so ludicrously skewed? Why do you think that a guideline as warped as this should be taken seriously? Besides, I still haven't seen anything that says flags in infoboxes such as those used in the F1 infobox are prohibited. Does it say clearly and unequivocably that they are prohibited? If it doesn't say that, then quite simply, they are not prohibited. The exceptions listed are not so listed as the only exceptions, so there are more. What are they? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I really wish I had answers to all your inquiries. Bottom line is that no guideline is perfect, and no one editor interprets the very same guideline the same. In the end we all just need to use our own common sense. We came up with those exceptions based on how close to an international event it was. ie: battles and world championships. Yes there are other obvious exceptions, but those are what we came up with at the time. If more should be added to the list, we can discuss it now. If we need to explicitly say that "Flag icons should not be in biographical article infoboxes", we can also do that as well. If any of this helps elevate future edit wars, then perhaps we should at least consider adding to the MOS.--JOJ Hutton 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that no flags should be inserted into infobox as they add nothing that text doesn't convey. Mo ainm~Talk 12:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on that point, they are of little use, in most cases, to adding any significant information to the infobox. There are and seem to always have been, a few acceptable exceptions (agreed upon at the previous discussion). I thought they were fairly clear, but apparently they aren't. Perhaps to make it more clear, a solution could be found to help alleviate some of the edit warring over this issue. A sentence could be inserted stating explicitly that Flag icons are forbidden in the infobox of a biography. That could be the first step. Then once that is done, we can see how it is being applied and see if the MOS needs to be altered anymore after that. I know the MOS isn't perfect, but that's why we have these discussions. We see what works and see look for solutions to potential problems with the MOS.--JOJ Hutton 15:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I would agree to that proposal it will end the nationalistic edit warring that ensues when a flag is added to an biographical infobox. Mo ainm~Talk 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, but is there anything else you would like to see done while we are discussing this? My philosophy is baby steps. We write the MOS and see what works, and if its not working or its too vague, we make changes accordingly. Seems to me that the confusion exists as to whether or not the flags should be in the infoboxes of biographies. We can fix this confusion, or at least help make it easier to understand.--JOJ Hutton 15:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Obviously a consensus will be needed before inserting a sentence into the guideline that explicitly forbids flagicons in all biographical infoboxes, as it's quite a big leap from what we currently have, and a number of people don't agree with the idea. A good reason will also need to be supplied, clearly nothing to do with being distracting, elevating one field above the others, or not adding information. These arguments can only be used when arguing against flags in all infoboxes. These arguments cannot be applied selectively, regardless of the type of infobox concerned. I'm amazed anyone thought that they could.
The idea that removing flags from infoboxes will end any nationalistic edit warring is wishful thinking. The small amount of edit warring that we see in F1 infoboxes always involves changing the flag and the name of the country (usually England / UK or Scotland / UK). The flags are not to blame for that type of edit warring, and their removal will not prevent it. Removing the flags would actually cause more edit warring as people try to restore them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
What then, is the purpose of having the flags in a biographical info box?--JOJ Hutton 20:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Other people will have other ideas, but I think it's the fast recognition factor - many people are very familiar with flags and nationality can be acknowledged by the reader without even looking for the infobox field or the name of the country. I also believe that it's helpful in educating readers, helping them to associate flags with country names. I accept the argument that Wikipedia articles don't exist to educate people about flags, but it's a useful secondary benefit with zero downside (I do not accept the "distraction" argument). I also believe that their restrained use is simply encyclopedic, but note that I only advocate flags for those people who are strongly associated with their country and whose flags are often seen in conjunction with those people in the media and our source material, e.g. sports people. I do not suggest flags for all, or even most, biographical articles, and I am largely a flag remover, not a flag adder. Anyway, you could ask a wider question - what is the purpose of having flags in any infobox, or any list or table? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Readers who scan or fast recognition factor is a notion that is entirely unproven Gnevin (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to break in here and ask why the nationality has to be acknowledged by the reader so quickly? Why is that information have to stand out over other information in the infobox? Also how do we determine to what degree, "people who are strongly associated with their country" is? Seems that this is the crux of most edit wars on this issue. --JOJ Hutton 00:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that nationality is a more important field, and I don't really see how a flag automatically suggests that field is more important - it's only a flag, not larger type or flashing lights. But I'm assuming we accept that the infobox serves those readers who want an "at-a-glance" overview of the subject. For those readers who are looking for the nationality quickly, it serves the easy recognition purpose I suggested. For others who are quickly looking for another field, the flag can help them to quickly ignore that field. To your second question, my phrasing was a bit woolly. I basically mean sportspeople. They are almost always strongly associated with their countries, regardless of whether they compete in a national team or not. The MOS should in any case explicitly show which cases allow flags and which do not, with no grey areas. I can't immediately think of any other people who would merit a flag. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You say you "do not accept the "distraction" argument", why because they don't distract you? They give undue prominence to a particular field in something that is supposed to inform at a quick glance. Apart from the very well known flags the majority of users would not be able to identify for example the flags of the new states created after the fall of the Soviet Union or the many flags of Africa.Mo ainm~Talk 21:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Right. Not only do they not distract me, I don't understand how they can distract anyone, because nobody has supplied any explanation of this distraction beyond saying, "They're distracting". Of all the potentially distracting things in an article, the flagicon has to be the smallest. Nobody argues about the usefulness of a photo against its potential distracting nature, and some photos are fairly pointless. I also don't accept the "undue prominence" argument. It's equally valid to say that if you're quickly glancing at an infobox looking for the subject's date of birth, for example, you will subconsciously ignore the nationality field because it has a flag in it - therefore they are aiding quick recognition of the fields. With regard to your second point, the flags are always accompanied by the name of the country, so identification is not a problem to those unfamiliar with flags. To counter your point, flags can educate people in matching a flag to a country, particularly in cases where flags are later used without the name of the country next to it, as in the 1998 World Cup article that was mentioned above. That is a wider encyclopedic and educational benefit. Many users will also not recognise the names of the more obscure countries but that wouldn't be a reason to remove the country name. Does a 12 year old from the US or the UK know that Djibouti is even a country? Does he/she know that Rhodesia was a country? With a flag next to them, it's pretty clear to him/her that they are countries, and that place names without flags are not countries. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I can answer both your posts by saying that flags in the infobox are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. We cannot assume that readers are automatically looking for nationality and that we should make it easy for them to find. Its undue weight to that portion of the infobox and add no relevant or encyclopedic information that it not already there. If its important that a person is from Great Britain, this: United Kingdom British, doesn't say it any more than. this: British.--JOJ Hutton 00:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that would basically be a case of "I don't agree with you". You're not stating absolute facts there, just your opinion. As I've said before, a flag can help a reader ignore the nationality field as much as it helps others find it quickly. It depends on what the reader is looking for. WP:UNDUE is about undue weight given to minority views in articles, it does not apply here. We disagree on the distraction element - personally I think one is only distracted by things one doesn't like. You're distracted by the flags because you don't like them and you find them of no use. That is perfectly understandable. Those who find flags helpful are not distracted by them, and they should not be overruled by those who are distracted by them. I find a number of things distracting on Wikipedia, but I don't try to have them deleted at the expense of those people who like those things. Your argument about flags not adding any extra information is a valid one (though I disagree with it), but it can only be applied to all infobox flags, not just biographical ones. In the World Cup article, this: France France says no more than this: France - according to your own argument. Therefore you cannot advocate keeping one flag and deleting the other based on that argument. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, what I did was cut and paste the exact rationale from MOS:FLAG. So its not my opinion, its the actual guideline. As I said before, the exceptions that were discussed were compromises at the previous discussion. Every policy, guideline, and MOS will have an occasional exception. We tried to create a few examples of what we thought were obvious exceptions. biographies were not included in those exceptions. What we need to do here is create a more clear MOS, so that there is absolutly no doubt about what is and is not an exception. Now its possible to really list every single exception, but what we did was give examples of a few of the more active articles.
Now you can continue to argue over whether or not you feel that they are distracting or not, but I assure you that you are arguing in vain. This is a settled part of the MOS and is stated as such. No point in continuing to argue that point as its not going to change any time soon. You can disagree with whether or not they are distracting or not, but previous consensus came to the conclusion that they are. It doesn't matter if we like them or not. The MOS is clear on that. What you seem to be arguing is that flag icons should be in any article info box. What you need to do is convince us as to why you think that biographies should be an exception. And why some biographies and not others?--JOJ Hutton 01:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a guideline, not policy, and you are portraying this guideline as some kind of incontrovertible fact. It isn't. Read WP:NOTSTATUTE, there are no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia. There is nothing in that guideline anyway that prohibits flagicons in the way they are used in the F1 infobox. It uses words like "discouraged", but that is not carte blanche for anyone to stretch that into claiming that flagicons are banned in biographical infoboxes. The words do not say that. The F1 infobox flagicons also clearly comply with aspects of the guideline such as representative nationality.

In creating exceptions, the guideline makes a mockery of the argument that flags are distracting and create undue prominence etc. Either they are or they aren't. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content clearly states that "The community's view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A"." The guideline currently implies that some infobox flagicons are distracting and other identical ones aren't - it says they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many and should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text yet one of these exalted "exceptions" allows them in infoboxes such as the 1998 World Cup infobox, where they blatantly contradict that part of the guideline. If the guideline contradicts itself, then it has no business dictating to anyone else. WP:IGNORE. It really doesn't matter how you arrived at editing the guideline that way, it does not suit the purposes you are using it for.

With regard to your last, very disappointing, point, I am not suggesting that flagicons should be in any article infobox, and I resent that assertion. I have clearly stated above that I'm basically talking about sportspeople and "I can't immediately think of any other people who would merit a flag", so kindly do not try to devalue my argument. Though I have done so already, I do not need to convince anyone that biographies should be an exception, because flagicons are not prohibited in biographical infoboxes - discouraged yes, but not prohibited. Until the guideline says that, and you clearly have no consensus yet for prohibiting flagicons in all biographical infoboxes (otherwise it would already be in the guideline), then there's no real point in prolonging this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to take a few days off from this conversation. Let you cool down and relax for a while. We could all use that.
It was not my intention to insinuate that you were attempting to do one thing or another, I just said that you seemed to be arguing for total inclusion. Thats what I was perceiving from what you wrote in your posts, by attempting to compare the exceptions to the biographies.
Also you do not need to remind me that there is no consensus to rewrite the wording or make flags prohibited in biographies. I was only attempting to start the discussion on that issue. Thats how consensus building works. Someone asks if something should be done, and we discuss it. We thought that it was clear the last time, but apparently not. Thats why I brought it up.--JOJ Hutton 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm perfectly calm, no cooling down necessary. I'm not sure how you thought I was arguing for total inclusion when I explicitly stated the opposite. That was pretty frustrating. There was nothing unclear about what I said, indeed it was a lot clearer than the guideline we're discussing. If you re-read the points I've made, you'll find all my arguments for retaining flagicons in sporting biographical infoboxes, and I'm not really keen on repeating myself. By comparing the exceptions to the biographies, I was questioning the selective nature of the arguments against flagicons in biographies, nothing else. An argument against one flagicon based on distraction / undue prominence / lack of extra information has to be applied to all similar flagicons, not selectively disregarded here and enforced there. It renders the argument invalid. I've said that several times now, and I don't see any response to that point. If you want a few days away from this discussion, that's fine. We also need more editors to join in, or no progress can be made. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument . The reason biographies have so many arguments applied against it are 2 fold, WP:BLP and the fact that peoples origins can be very unclear. Gnevin (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with you. It's a blatant double standard clothed in the pseudo-official verbosity of a guideline. Firstly, what aspect of WP:BLP are you talking about, and secondly, this flag does not indicate an F1 driver's origins, it indicates his sporting nationality, which is easily verifiable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFF is nothing to do with guidelines and policy, it's about article deletion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
In response to Bretonbanquet's request above for "more editors to join in", here are my thoughts (most of which have already been expressed by others):
  • There is a strong emphasis on driver nationality in Formula One. Entry lists and results tables almost always include the driver's nationality, plus the winner's national anthem is played on the podium, etc
  • I personally don't find the flagicons in the F1 driver infoboxes "distracting"
  • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes permits "acceptable exceptions"; I don't see any reason why Formula One driver infoboxes can't be an "acceptable exception"
  • The Nationality field in the F1 infobox is deliberately located beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading, to reinforce that it's the driver's representative nationality, not their "general nationality" (whatever that means)
  • The word "Nationality" in the infobox is linked to FIA_Super_Licence#Nationality_of_drivers, to further reinforce the point
DH85868993 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Lets answer each one of your bullet points, one by one shall we?
  • Mentioning the drivers nationality is already included with a wikilink. Never was it suggested that the nationality should never be mentioned. If you look at the two infobox examples above, you will notice, very clearly, that the nationality of the subject is still included. So lets put that argument to rest right now.
  • Whether or not one finds a flag in the infobox distracting or not, consensus has come to the conclusion that they are. Enough so to actually include the exact wording into the MOS. Its what the MOS says, even if you do not personally agree with it. Editing Wikipedia means following the standard policies, guidelines, and MOS procedures. You can't pick and choose if you don't like it.
  • Yes, there are acceptable exceptions to MOS:FLAG. Formula 1 biographies are not one of them. In fact no biography is exempt. The exceptions were carefully looked at and "voted" on in the last consensus. It was decided that biographies were not exempted, therefore F1 biographies are not exempted. You may feel that they should be, but currently, they are not, and we must edit Wikipedia using the current guidelines, not what we would want them to be.
  • Again, a driver's nationality is already mentioned, placing a flag next to it, doesn't add any encyclopedic value to the article. But MOS:FLAG already says that, now doesn't it?
  • The word "Nationality" is still linked in the infobox, even without a flag in it, so I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this.
Lets not forget that this is about flags in the infobox, not about whether or not a persons nationality should be mentioned or not. makes me think that perhaps some people do not really understand the crux of the MOS and what it means.--JOJ Hutton 20:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I would remind you that guidelines are not hard and fast rules. Exceptions to the guidelines are always possible. WP:NOTSTATUTE. I would also remind you that it doesn't say anywhere in the guideline that flags are not permitted in biographical infoboxes, despite your continuing insistence that it does. There are acceptable exceptions, but rather crucially, there is no list. It just lists 'some' exceptions. As I have said, if you don't like something, you will find it distracting - it's human nature. If you like it or find it useful, it's not distracting. The wording regarding distraction in the guideline is simply the voice of those editors in that discussion that just don't like flags. This is proven concretely by the fact that these very same flags are suddenly not distracting (even enhancing) when it suits the people who wrote the guideline. Turns out some people understand the MOS pretty well. Personally I hate those ridiculous 'look at me' coloured signatures. I find them intensely distracting and they add nothing to the encyclopedia, but I'm not going to attempt to formulate a guideline to bully people into getting rid of them simply because I don't like them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
In response to Jojhutton, my last two bullet points were to reinforce that the nationality listed in the F1 driver infobox is the driver's representative nationality, since Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Use_of_flags_for_sportspersons makes a distinction between "representative nationality" and "non-sporting nationality". In regard to the statement that no biographical infoboxes are exempt, why then does Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Use_of_flags_for_sportspersons says flagicons are discouraged for sportspeople's infoboxes - why does it not say "prohibited"? To be honest, I'm not all that passionate about having flagicons in F1 driver infoboxes. What I object to is the idea that a longstanding WikiProject convention should be overriden by an MOS guideline which doesn't explicitly contradict the convention and which itself is inconsistent with another part of the MOS. DH85868993 (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
My concern was this is solely about the "flag icon" and not whether or not the persons nationality is mentioned or not. In some cases nationality IS important and should be mentioned, but do we really need to highlight it by adding a flag that is completely unnecessary, and against guidelines anyway?--JOJ Hutton 18:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
But it isn't against the guidelines. As much as you like to repeat over and over again that it is. The guidelines were written the way they were to specifically allow for such uses. So to say its against the guidelines is factually incorrect. -DJSasso (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Nowhere does it state that biographical articles are exempt from the guidline. Mo ainm~Talk 20:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
(To Djasso), So basically lets just throw out all the guidelines whenever it suits us? Not a chance. If its says As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many and should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text., how do you interpret that as flags are not against the guideline?--JOJ Hutton 20:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It is pretty clear...it says "discouraged" not "prohibited". If it isn't banned then using them can't be violating it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be an impasse in this discussion. Reminder, this is a WP:MOS guide, not a WP:Policy.
"Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
I think the wikiproject has more say in the matter regarding the article unless it violates a policy. Also this talk page is not the place to discuss application or interpretation of this guide, but rather the improvement and useability of the guide itself. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If ya'll decide to use flags, then PLEASE limit it to sovereign state flags. For example - use ths United Kingdom, not these England Scotland Wales, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the F1 Wikiproject does not use the flags of England, Scotland, Wales or N Ireland as those territories do not issue motor racing licences. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
As one of the editors who took part in this discussion, GoodDay would have been perfectly well aware of that. Sad to say, rather than contributing any meaningful argument to the discussion, GoodDay was simply doing what he does - trolling. Daicaregos (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
One can't be expected to remember something from 10-months ago. Please don't comment on contributor. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It's hard not to when the duck is quacking so loudly. -DJSasso (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a public talkpage, please don't comment on contributor. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I will remember to do so when you don't put trolling comments in a discussion that had nothing to do with what you posted... -DJSasso (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Bretonbanquet. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The FIA Super Licence also states "The nationality that appears on the racing licence is the same one that appears on the driver's passport. This is not necessarily the same as the country issuing the racing licence. A Frenchman living in Germany can race with a German licence, but the nationality displayed would still be French. In order to race as German, the driver would need to have German nationality as well. For drivers with multiple citizenships, the driver chooses one of them to drive for." SO it leads itself to reliable sources for the addition of a nationality to the bio of the driver. Mo ainm~Talk 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It matters little to this MOS what a person's nationality is, or who they compete for. Hell, add 50 nationalities for that matter. As long as they are not accompanied by a Flag in the infobox, per MOS:FLAG.--JOJ Hutton 00:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
"Per MOS:FLAG" is not some magic wand that you can wave that makes you miraculously in the right and all else wrong. Indeed, many contributors to this discussion have raised perfectly good and reasoned objections both to your interpretation of the wording of the guide and to your interpretation of the very role of the guide itself. Wikipedia is not ruled by diktat. Wikipedia is driven by consensus, and consensus does not mean majority rule. Consensus means that where differences of opinion exist parties discuss it and decide on a mutually acceptable solution. It doesn't necessarily have to be a solution whereby everyone gets precisely what they want, but there does have to be agreement from all parties that this is a workable way forward. So far you haven't raised a single point that hasn't been contradicted or agued against perfectly reasonably. "Per MOS" is not an argument, it is a fig leaf. The MOS on this topic is wooly and, in my view, silly. Nebulous POV statements such as "gives undue prominence" and "is distracting" with little to no substantiation cannot be left to stand without demanding "how so?" Bretonbanquet has addressed these issues very succinctly, above, and so far other than repeatedly falling back on your opinion that the MOS is some sort of cast-in-stone rulebook you haven't actually done much. The MOS is not a rulebook. The MOS is not fixed. The MOS is open for interpretation, especially where reasonable justification can be provided. This has been done here, and yet still you whinge about "per MOS:FLAG", when actually that just shows how little you really understand the role of the MOS. Pyrope 14:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_10&oldid=1136059182"